Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Criterion Collection DVD and Blu-ray releases


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep.  Sandstein  08:57, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

List of Criterion Collection DVD and Blu-ray releases

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:INDISCRIMINATE; WP:NOTCATALOG. See multiple other similar discussions: Articles for deletion/List of Magnetic Video releases; Articles for deletion/List of Arrow Films releases; Articles for deletion/List of Artisan Entertainment video releases; Articles for deletion/List of Twilight Time releases; Articles for deletion/List of Powerhouse Films releases; Articles for deletion/List of BBC home video releases, etc, etc. -- wooden superman  12:30, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Holsheimer (talk) 14:15, 19 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete - Indiscriminate, no WP:LISTN. FOARP (talk) 15:46, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:49, 19 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NOTCATALOGUE. Ajf773 (talk) 21:23, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep I argue that this is not a non-notable list WP:LISTN. I can find numerous sources on why the criterion collection is a notable label and being part of the collection is a notable event. Also, this list was a featured list candidate.Holsheimer (talk) 11:05, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying the collection itself isn't notable, or even that being part of the collection isn't a notable event for the individual film, but the list of releases is nothing more than a product catalogue. -- wooden  superman  11:43, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Precisely, meeting WP:LISTN isn't about whether the items in the list are notable, it's about whether the list itself is notable. FOARP (talk) 20:22, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * That's exactly what I'm saying. The list itself, the collection, is notable. The Main article has sources on this. There for the list is WP:LISTN Holsheimer (talk) 13:16, 21 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep Though Criterion is a boutique video label, the collection carries a significant amount of prestige reminiscent of the National Film Registry. When a film recieves an official Criterion spine number, it joins an elite class of motion pictures respected by notable working filmmakers including Steven Spielberg, Martin Scorsese, Guillermo del Toro, Barry Jenkins, Paul Thomas Anderson, Edgar Wright, Christopher Nolan, and Kathleen Kennedy. The list may need alterations to bring it in line with Wikipedia standards (ie we should remove availability information per WP:NOTCATALOGUE), but it absolutely deserves a page. ~LeiAdeline 22:44, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. This seems a reasonable content fork from the main article. --Killer Moff (talk) 23:55, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep I find it difficult to justify saying this article is nothing more than a product catalogue, especially when it includes more than 100 titles that are out of print. Considering the influence The Criterion Collection has in the film industry, both in regards to entertainment and academics, this list is more tantamount to the bibliography or filmography page of a prominent author or filmmaker. Keep the article; work to make it more in line with Wikipedia guidelines. --2601:681:4400:2F50:80AA:2039:803E:B63F (talk) 00:17, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It's nothing like a bibliography or filmography page. In those cases, the author or filmmaker actually produced the material in question.  Criterion is a licensee of material produced by other companies and individuals.  Whilst a list of films produced by a studio is encyclopedic, a list of other people's films that a DVD company has released is not.  This is a product catalogue.  It's no different from something like List of Sony Music CD releases, or any of the multiple similar lists that have also been deleted.  -- wooden  superman  12:55, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * If you check the contributions and influence section on the main page, or would be familiar with the collection you could know that Criterion has created new restorations, recorded interviews and commentaries, commissioned essays for their releases, besides setting industry standards for releasing home cinema releases. They are not just a simple distributor. I would say it is more in line with something like this: List of works in the Museum of Modern Art Holsheimer (talk) 13:16, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * All of which is worthy of a mention on the Criterion article, or on the article of each film in question. It does not make this list notable, or any less of a catalog.  -- wooden  superman  14:06, 21 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep This is a very useful list for those interested. It may become more useful over time. It can be difficult to find such information, even when the source company maintains a comprehensive website. And the company or their website could disappear anytime. --TLS56 (talk) 01:13, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia isn't here to maintain lists of what products a company has released. Also, see WP:USEFUL.  -- wooden  superman  12:55, 21 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Note to closing admin. Three of the "keep" !votes have 8 edits between them.  This is the only edit for two of them, and they seem unaware of policies and guidelines.  -- wooden  superman  09:43, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a reference, not a catalog. --Purple Dart (talk) 07:39, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Another "keep" !vote with less than 5 edits. Strange.  -- wooden  superman  12:50, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It isn't "strange" at all. Rather it's an indication that people who want to actually use Wiki as opposed to faffing about protecting arcane rules want to keep the page. There are quite enough examples of useful info being lost due to officious hair splitting without adding some more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.128.41 (talk) 16:07, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
 * A user with just three edits I don't expect them to understand the difference between a reference and a catalogue. Ajf773 (talk) 20:17, 21 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep This is an important list and I wish the other lists weren't deleted, and if they were going to be deleted I wish for another wikia for studios and their releases, but this list must be kept TVWolf (talk) 15:01, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Why not start one on wikia.com or something. That's a much more appropriate place for WP:LISTCRUFT. This isn't what Wikipedia is for!  Also, see WP:ITSIMPORTANT.  -- wooden  superman  15:06, 21 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep This list is both helpful for purchases but also to study a iconic film restorer (normally with the director's help), you could use the website but there are hundreds of out of print releases that aren't on there.Kuzrock (talk) 17:20, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Self-evidently for most cine-philes and collectors this is a keep. The Criterion Collection is a universally respected and prestigious set and the historic list of releases is often referred to by members of that community. I doubt those members sepnd untold time making edits to Wiki and frankly I can't see why that means their views of less importance than those who, quite frankly, I strongly suspect haven't a scooby when it comes to this subject expert though they may in in Wiki barrack room lawyer arguments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.128.41 (talk) 14:16, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Again WP:USEFUL isn't a suitable argument for retention. The purpose of Wikipedia isn't a buyers guide. Ajf773 (talk) 20:17, 21 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep as a valid split fom a notable article so it is clearly a notable list according to the multiple reliable sources in the parent article. This list is different to the other video lists mentioned as it is covered more in rs as a prestige and collectible set rather than run of the mill dvds and blu rays. No valid reason for deletion except WP:IDONTLIKEIT Atlantic306 (talk) 21:32, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Using the official website (www.criterion.com) may be reliable but these are primary sources, just because the parent article is notable does not mean notability for this article is automatically inherited. Also WP:NOTCATALOGUE is the main reason to support deletion ... it's not the job of Wikipedia to list every single release on DVD or Blu-ray from a particular publisher. Ajf773 (talk) 02:10, 23 December 2018 (UTC)


 * COMMENT There's a whole load of WP:USEFUL and WP:ILIKEIT keep !votes above here. No-one has given even a single decent reason why WP:LISTN is met. Remember, this means showing that the list itself (NOT just the individual items on it) are notable, and showing that this notability is supported by INDEPENDENT (i.e., not Criterion's website!) reliable sources. I get it, you're enthusiastic about old movies - so am I - but that doesn't mean that this list is notable enough for an article. FOARP (talk) 10:21, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed. This whole discussion reads like an example at Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions.  -- wooden  superman  10:37, 24 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep at least one element of this list - whether the release was issued on Laserdisc and, if yes, what the formats (CAV/CLV) and spine labels were - do not appear to be available as part of Criterion's online catalog, increasing the value of this list above one geared to selling items in their currently-supported formats Ducki3x (talk) 18:00, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The above editor has only four edits to their name, all in 2015, all in just one article. Ajf773 (talk) 09:57, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
 * And WP:NOTCATALOGUE. Seriously people, you can even keep this list on your own user pages. Just not in the article space. FOARP (talk) 11:33, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
 * A person's edit history does not validate or invalidate their argument. See WP:ATTP. LeiAdeline (talk) 23:52, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It's odd that the discussion seems more nominator-specific with the point of voting right at the end. Perhaps WP:AOBF is more direct? – The Grid  ( talk )  18:03, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Needs more experienced editor input, probably.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   21:21, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Very reasonable split off main article.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 00:54, 27 December 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.