Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of DVDs with audio description

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 00:35, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

List of DVDs with audio description
On the talk page, the creator says "I moved the list of DVDs with audio description from my site to Wikipedia because it's too laborious for me to update the list, I'm always behind-- sometimes up to a year, and description providers should be updating the list."

This page and its sublists have not been meaningfully updated since they were created in November 2004. It's unmaintainble, unnecessary, unencylopedic. This VFD entry is also for


 * List of DVDs with audio description - Region 1
 * List of DVDs with audio description - Region 2 - English
 * List of DVDs with audio description - Region 2 - French
 * List of DVDs with audio description - Region 2 - German.

I hope that's all right... Coffee 12:52, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

So let's leave it for a while and see if conditions improve. This is the sort of thing that a few E-mails (especially to blind mailing lists) could remedy. (Also, could somebody tell me how to put a timestamp in my .sig here? Yes, I checked the help files and still didn't find it.) Joe Clark
 * Delete per nominator reasoning. I'm starting to like lists less and less. Categories, now, those work well. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) 12:54, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. I think a list of DVDs with descriptive audio for the visually impaired is a valuable reference-- and there aren't that many of them (of the hundreds of DVDs in my collection, only three have this feature), so the list isn't likely to become overly unwieldly. But we need people to actually update this thing to make it viable rather than relying on others to do the work, so my proposal is to give it a conditional keep and revisit this in a few months if no one has expanded the lists noticably within that time. 23skidoo 13:41, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. I can see how the information is useful, but the list doesn't seem to have been updated since November 2004. It looks to have been dumped here by its original author and I can't see how anyone's going to be interested in maintaining it. It also whiffs of original research. Flowerparty talk 15:50, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Perhaps we should add "Dumpsite for your pet projects when you grow tired of them" to WP:NOT.  This is unlikely to ever be kept up-to-date enough to be a useful reference for anyone.  The American Foundation for the Blind lists resources.  Robert A West 18:55, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Agree with Robert that a new entry should be added to WP:NOT. -R. fiend 20:25, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia is not a webhost, Wikipedia is not a place for original research, Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminant information, etc. --Carnildo 23:20, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, WP:NOT. Proto t c 09:50, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete unmaintainable unencyclopedic list. JamesBurns 03:30, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Conditional keep: I am the originator of this page. Indeed it seems almost nobody has touched it since I posted it (or the regional variants). This is pretty strong evidence that people interested in DVDs accessible to the blind just aren't interested enough to maintain a list, which should be surprising but isn't. Nonetheless, unless somebody can show me a Wikipedia policy page that states that Lists must always be kept up to date (within what timeframe?), I see no reason to delete the pages. They were true and accurate as of their origination date. However,
 * I do firmly disagree that the page is "unencyclopedic," a sort of catchall criticism; Wikipedia has innovated in the domain of encyclopedias by encouraging lists, something I support. The list was encyclopedic when it was created!
 * As for "unmaintainable," clearly the page is maintain able ; it's just that nobody wants to bother.
 * "Unnecessary" is clearly false.
 * I certainly don't understand how this list might be deemed "original research" (an unusual pejorative) when a list of, say, all the gay films in the world isn't (to use an example of an actively-maintained list).
 * 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.