Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Looney Tunes Golden Collection: Volume 1


 * 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 - jc37 11:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Looney Tunes Golden Collection: Volume 1

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

These DVD releases are already adequately covered by Looney Tunes Golden Collection (at least at revision ). Individual articles for every DVD with full lists of the 50-60 cartoons in each set are completely unnecessary. Wikipedia isn't a DVD catalog. Collectonian (talk) 02:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep: I've been thinking about this one since it came up. My first thoughts are to keep them.  The box set itself probably is acceptable for an article.  They have lots of information that couldn't be merged, as then the main article would be way too long.  I may be persuaded to change my comment, but as of now, I say keep. - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think the articles have lots of information that can't be merged. All of the articles are mostly just a big list of some of what's on each disc, which is generally unnecessary and not in keeping with the way most DVD releases are handled, even sets. Even the huge Star Trek collection DVDs don't have lists of every single episode, not even for the mixed theme collections. At best, a summary of special features and what kinds of shorts are in each set would seem to be all that is needed for a Wikipedia article. Which cartoon is in which set, if any, is better covered Looney Tunes & Merrie Melodies filmography (as it appears the lists in the individual articles are actually not complete, but "highlights" that cover 1/3-1/2 the sets... Collectonian (talk) 02:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep: There is way too much info for each volume so each volume must be kept.  Otherwise the main article would be way too long. Steelbeard1 (talk) 02:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep: Too much information would be lost with their deletion.  These are important remasterings and reissues of classic, theatrically-released cartoons.  You cannot compare this to Star Trek because these cartoons did not pre-exist in "seasons".  The lists that would be deleted do not exist on other pages.  DavidRF (talk) 02:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep: Valuable index. jengod (talk) 06:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:SUMMARY. A single article would be too long; this represents a reasonable and apporopriate split of a larger article.  --Jayron32| talk | contribs  07:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete. Does any other DVD collection of television shows or cartoons have their own page, no. no it does not. User:Jayron32's proclaimation of a "single article would be too long" is wrong, as that doesn't matter. it's also just a list of what cartoons are on the DVD! Doc Strange (talk) 14:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Rebuttal: Read Walt Disney Treasures. The Tramp, as stated below, proves there are other theatrical cartoon collections with separate articles. Steelbeard1 (talk) 17:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: What about WAX? Also, it would make the original article too long, and that is partly a reason to keep it.  There are many details in the individual articles that would be lost if deleted.  Long articles are being split up into separate articles on a regular basis.  There is even a guideline about this.  That guideline recommends that article try and keep below the 32KB mark (if all of these are added together, it would be about 50KB).  Although the length of an article is not alone, a reason to divide it up, these are already divided, and the are properly divided in an "encyclo-positive" way. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep: Walt Disney Treasures does have all waves on a seprate articels and list all contents on the DVD so if Looney Tunes Collection is deleted then it throwns the Disney Treasures articels in to qustion and this is the 2 of the major animation studios in animation history in USA and both studios diserve to have there 2 most presatageus DVD collection in articel of there own. The Tramp (talk) 11:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions.  -- Hiding Talk 22:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge - Make these five articles into one article with a section for each volume. Yes, it would be long, but it's just a list of contents anyway.  Users aren't going to be hunting for information within the article, so the length would not make it confusing.  Plus, I see an advantage to being able to search for a title on one article and see which volume includes it. Torc2 (talk) 23:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep: These articles in question deserve to remain, because, as Torc2 said, the Walt Disney Treasures DVD waves each have separate articles. And, as The Tramp and DavidRF said, many of the cartoons of both Disney and Warner Bros. are justly regarded as the finest of American animation.  Why not list which cartoons are included in each DVD box set in separate articles? Each article contains unique information regarding the DVD sets (including the supplementary material). I say keep. —  Cinemaniac (talk) 21:21, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep: So long as the articles contain information more than just a list of the disc's contents, they're relevant here. This information could include professional reviews, press documentation, notes about how the shorts were chosen to be included in each collection, historical data about the documentaries included, archive material, commentators interviewed, etc. —scarecroe (talk) 05:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Except, none of them contain any of that info, and as no sources have been added to any of the five (nor the main), I suspect such information would not be readily available. All of these articles are just a semi-complete listing of the disk contents.  Collectonian (talk) 06:05, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * "none of them contain any of that info" In which case attention tags should be placed on the articles to encourage expansion. —scarecroe (talk) 07:17, 25 November 2007 (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.