Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Doctor Who DVD 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. Never properly listed in the first place. T. Canens (talk) 19:21, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

List of Doctor Who DVD releases

 * – ( View AfD View log )

List is un-necessary, The artical is very unwikipedic. Babelcolour5 (talk) 00:41, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. I use this page all the time and find it extremely useful.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reloranger (talk • contribs) 19:20, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm against deletion and don't understand why anyone would propose it. I'd also like to get rid of the proposal for deletion for this article if that is an acceptable suggestion. If not I'd support any way of getting rid of the sword of Damocles over the article. Except if it destroys the information in the article. -Angeloz 123.2.138.148 (talk) 09:05, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong keep. No explanation on behalf of the nominator aside from "unnecessary" is not an argument for deletion.  I think WP:Snowball applies here.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:44, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note that since my contribution, nominating editor has amended his rationale. Not really correct protocol.  Anyway, still not a strong argument, given that most of what can be found on wikipedia can be found elsewhere.  However, what is being discussed here is more than just a catalogue, as it charts the history and development of the releases of Doctor Who DVDs, thus an encyclopaedic article.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:51, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong keep if that's the proper wording. -Angeloz 123.2.138.148 (talk) 14:28, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Keep There is precedent for other DVD list articles here at Wikipedia including this one List of Criterion Collection DVD and Blu-ray releases. The article certainly meets Wikipedia's notability standards and the delineation of the various box sets is useful for readers in ways that other websites don't match. MarnetteD | Talk 15:02, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd like to add The Key To Time box set information and history of releases are summarised pretty usefully in one spot although really all the release information is useful. Plus represents years of work by the DVD makers and editors here to list the information. -Angeloz 123.2.138.148 (talk) 15:14, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Strong keep. I find this wikipedia entry very useful. It presents the information in a clean format and provides a lot of useful information in one spot. Andy Ryan (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:27, 7 September 2011 (UTC).

Strong Keep I too find this Article very useful and refer to it quite often. That it details Region 4 Release Dates is reason enough to keep it, IMHO. Kiwibeca (talk) 16:43, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Strong Keep I see no reason to delete this well-maintained list. The fact that this info is detailed elsewhere is not a valid reason for deletion. All of the information in Wikipedia is detailed elsewhere. Etron81 (talk) 17:56, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I think it might be time to speedily close this - the nominator has not participated in the discussion beyond amending the opening reasoning twice:
 * First reasoning - "Un-necessary" (00:41, 6 September 2011 (UTC))
 * Second reasoning - "List is un-necessary, there a loads of other websites containing this infomation that doesn't need to be on the Wikipedia, this list is very unwikipedic." (06:10, 6 September 2011)
 * Third Reasoning - "List is un-necessary, The artical is very unwikipedic." (19:39, 7 September 2011)

The consensus thus far is Strong Keep and the nominator has thus far not expanded on his/her reasoning. Why is this unnecessary and unwikipedic? Etron81 (talk) 02:09, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll be honest, I almost closed it per WP:SNOW. But if there are arguments for deletion, it's better to air them out and resolve them now, rather than setting the stage for another AFD later on. The nominator amending their rationale is hinky, a bit (just add a comment expanding your remarks), but not that out of the ordinary. If the rationale speaks for itself, there's no real need for the nominator to comment - the other Delete !votes will do that just as well. That's not the case on this article, though. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 15:25, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep on the merits, as the article appears to be well-sourced and well-written. There is no fundamental policy breach that would doom this article, nor do I see a compelling reason to delete it. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 12:40, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Strong Keep I have been watching the Doctor Who series from the earliest episodes (to the extent those are available). The series contains many story threads that run for years, so it is highly desirable to watch them in order of broadcast. Prior to starting I searched "loads" of sites related to Doctor Who for information on episodes. I have not found any list that is as complete, coherent, consistently updated and generally useful as the list in this Wikipedia article. I visit this article often and would very much like to continue. Wikipedia holds many articles that offer (or even consist mainly of) organized sets of links to otherwise disorganized but related material. Why is this "unwikipedic"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xerophilic (talk • contribs) 13:52, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep the nom doesn't seem inclined to expand on their objection, so this is a pretty clear WP:SNOW.  Mi re ma re   00:51, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep, in part because the nomination rationale is unpersuasive. This list is generally well-sourced and well-maintained, and contains substantial prose sections, meaning that it is hardly list-cruft. How exactly is it "unnecessary" or "unwikipedic"? I agree that a snow-keep may well be in order.  Super Mario  Man  17:06, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep I too do not understand the rationale. It is useful, sourced, organized and sufficiently "wikipedic". PeterEdw (talk) 05:40, 10 September 2011 (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.