Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Looney Tunes Golden Collection: Volume 1 (2nd nomination)


 * 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. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  00:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Looney Tunes Golden Collection: Volume 1
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Fails WP:N and Wikipedia is not a sales catalog. Individual DVD releases are generally not notable apart from their actual media, in this case Looney Tunes Golden Collection. Since previous AfD that closed in November 2007, the articles have remained completely unsourced without any demonstrable notability as in significant coverage in reliable, third party sources for each specific DVD. They are basically big advertisements. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 05:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.   —--  Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 05:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.   —--  Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 16:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * KEEP - I agree Wikipedia should not be an advertising page, but I own this DVD series and am currently ripping them to store in my iPod. This page is being perfect to get the correct information on every cartoon, in the correct order. It would be a real pain to find the page to every episode by hand, specially because this cartoons are more than 60 years old, and weren't presented in a formal order. Deleting this page would be the same as deleting any episode list of any TV show out there. This DVD box is a real treasure because it organizes those classic cartoons. Wikipedia should have this information, no doubt about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimitridon (talk • contribs) 11:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)  — Dimitridon (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * That is beyond no reason to keep it. Wikipedia is not here to help you rip cartoons to your iPod. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 14:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * KEEP--I also own this DVD series and for the reasons stated above. Steelbeard1 (talk) 11:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you have any reason for keeping it beyond WP:ILIKEIT?-- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 14:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * KEEP--Unlike some other DVD collections, the entries are not in order of release, so these lists are a good reference not available elsewhere in Wikipedia. This is, in my opinion, a bad-faith, "I-don't-like-it", nomination. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 12:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Why not try some WP:AGF. Not being in order of release is irrelevant, nor is Wikipedia here to provide minute details about DVD releases. Other individual DVDs are covered in the main article page, why should this one be special? Numerous other individual DVD releases are NOT notable, nor is this one. There is an article for the cartoons. That's where its DVD releases should be discussed.-- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 14:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * "I don't like it, therefore nobody else can have it" equates to bad faith. Lists to other articles are used extensively in wikipedia. Maybe it's the title you have a problem with. If it said "List of..." then maybe you would find it worthy. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Except, I never said I don't like it. Love Looney Tunes, thanks, and your presumption that I don't like the DVDs is bad faith, not the nomination. However, many previous AfDs have shown that individual DVD releases are NOT notable. And this isn't a list of the releases, nor any kind of valid list at all, this is five individual articles for five individual DVDs that repeat give you the back of the box/inside of the box details on the contents. Looney Tunes Golden Collection has a list of episodes, and it has a summary of the DVD releases. Excessive details are not necessary. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 19:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Your complaint is that it's "advertising". Where were you last February, when this SPA was using the Superman music article for the express purpose of pushing his "limited edition" CD set, alleged to be the original-original soundtrack of the Superman film? I raised a large ruckus about this and was nearly pilloried for it. At least the Golden Edition DVD's are actually available in stores, nor is the presence of these articles purposedly intended as "advertising", but merely as convenient references. In fact, that stuff about the "limited edition" CD set is still staining the Superman music article. Maybe you could turn your deletionist sights on something that actually deserves it. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Had I know about it, I would certainly have supported your efforts and its rather sad that it was actually kept like that. *sigh* Unfortunately, I don't follow those particular sets of articles articles (I mostly work on B-movies for film stuff, and some made-for-tv stuff; did you post about the problem at the Films project?) In the anime/manga project, we recently had a major issue with a publisher coming and creating articles for every last title they had licensed, completely with ad copy. We're still cleaning up through all of those, with most being deleted after extensive project discussion over all of them. Alas, I'm sorry the experience seems to have left you a little bitter, though I certainly can understand the feeling. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 01:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Covering all the discs in detail in the main article would make the article overly long. This seems to be an appropriate use of Summary style. - Mgm|(talk) 12:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Per summary style we should not have articles giving the entire breakdown of the contents of each volume of the DVD, but should have summary paragraphs for each release noting that it has X number of episodes and maybe a noting how many from each decade. Not "here is every last feature and every last episodes." -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 14:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * KEEP - Has anything changed since the first nomination? Why are we discussing this again? (And its the same editor nominating it for deletion.)  All of the comments from the first round are still valid.  All of the "waves" from the Walt Disney Treasures have their own articles.  Of course, seems like there is a WP-tag to refute any opinion here, so slap one on me. DavidRF (talk) 15:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You're right, nothing in the article has changed, at all, nothing. Not a single reference added in over a year. Nothing showing it actually is notable, just seems like another round of "OMG, I love this" and yeah, there is a WP-tag about the whole "other stuff exists" argument, but won't bother adding since you should know that one already. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 16:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * There's been lots of edit activity on these pages. Maybe not the kind you want, but you incorrectly characterize these pages as being "dead".  As for WP-tags, I'd mention WP:CON but then you'd counter with WP:NOTDEMOCRACY.  So, I remain unimpressed by these tags.  DavidRF (talk) 16:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Activity doesn't mean actual improvement. And consensus can change...its been over a year and some policies and guidelines used before have changed since then. So time to see if consensus still agrees that some DVD releases are notable apart from their actual series, when for 99% of other series, they are not. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 16:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete all: No sources, no encyclopaedic content, no articulation of notability. Just lots of explicit WP:ILIKEIT. Wikifanpaedia at its worst. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete all No sources means this fails WP:V. While the articles may be useful to some users, without any independent, secondary, reliable sources these articles are purely original research. Keep !votes above have no basis in policy. -Atmoz (talk) 17:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep these toons are a part of television history and as such are quite notable. ArcAngel (talk) 17:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The toons indeed are, that is why they have an article, Looney Tunes Golden Collection. Their five DVD releases, however, are not notable apart from the toons themselves, and should not have separate articles. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 19:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep These DVD boxes are very high-profile, yearly releases, receive wide coverage and reviews. Obviously notable. Second nomination? This kind of time-wasting AfD is disruptive to the project and should not be allowed. Dekkappai (talk) 18:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * PS. Yes, I'll do the nominator's work, and add some sourcing later on. Again, this kind of hijacking of the time and effort of other editors is disruptive to the project. Dekkappai (talk) 18:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * There is nothing obviously notable about it and your personal attack and serious bad faith accusations are what is disruptive. The last nomination was well over a year ago, and it is well within guidelines to renominate if article has not actually been improved and continues to have the same issues.-- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 19:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong keep Don't understand why this was put through AfD to begin with. §FreeRangeFrog 20:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The individual DVDs have enjoyed media coverage on their respective releases: . Pastor Theo (talk) 00:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I've just started, and I find articles & reviews on each release in many mainstream sources... Washington Post, New Yorker, etc. Yet the nominator shows no intention of not re-nominating this again, hoping that "Consensus has changed" (i.e., no one cares enough to continuously defend the articles from nomination.) And why not? What does a Deletionist have to lose? By allowing criminally disruptive nominations such as this one, the Wikipedia community actively encourages this sort of behavior. Dekkappai (talk) 00:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment OK, I've taken the time to add sourcing/reviews from mainstream media to-- I think-- every one of these articles, plus volume six. The nominator, rather than appreciating my doing the work, has instigated some kind of kangaroo court against me, further casting a shadow of doubt on the good faith of this nomination. I'll step out now. Dekkappai (talk) 01:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Rebuttal: no, all you've added are some external links. Not one of these articles has a single citation (or even a general reference). This means that either (i) the sources don't provide the topics with significant coverage (do they really discuss each volume individually?), or (ii) that they are not being given WP:DUE weight in the articles. Either way, it is not clear how they establish notability. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * What do you mean "do they really discuss each volume individually?" Those are contemporary news reports.  A full year separated the release of each volume. How could the 2003 links be about anything other than volume 1?  Likewise on the links on the other pages.  How can you issue such a scathing rebuttal when you haven't even read what you are rebutting? DavidRF (talk) 06:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply Right, DavidRF-- What the expletive ? I've provided citations to articles on each individual DVD release. These are articles, and reviews, from mainstream reliable sources. New Yorker, Washington Post, Associated Press, etc. This is evidence of significant coverage of each one of these releases in mainstream reliable sources. Each new external link (some are actually newspaper articles-- not links) is entirely about the individual release. If you don't believe it, check it. Now that I have provided plenty of sourcing and evidence of notability, anyone who cares about the articles can use these to flesh out the articles. That is how articles are written-- find the sources, then use them to build up the article. Someone does care about these articles, don't they? I've taken time out of my usual editing interest areas to find these sources to save these articles from deletion, and I for my efforts I get dragged in to some sort of tribunal, and then told that I haven't done anything to improve the article. Jeez. Dekkappai (talk) 06:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Y ou're blaming DavidRF for my comments. I'd hardly call The Digital Bits, au.dvd.ign.com, a Businesswire press releases, the Gonzaga University paper, tvshowsondvd.com, .the-trades.com or Animation World Network to be "mainstream reliable sources". The only "mainstream" sources are unlinked (as well as uncited), so it is unclear how much information they provide. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I agreed with DavidRF. I signified that by typing, "Right, DavidRF." I lay the blame for your comments at your feet. Is there a language barrier here? In any case, my work here is done. De-watching the whole mess. Dekkappai (talk) 07:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 *  Delete /Merge: The individual pages are a mess even if the articles are notable; we just don't go into that much detail about what a DVD release is (WP is not a sales catalog). That's not to say that the list of cartoons on each set is bad.  My recommendation is that Looney Tunes Golden Collection be about the releases, with an introductory lede, sections summarizing each volume and their reception, incorporating any relevant information, while a new article, List of cartoons in the Looney Tunes Golden Collections be made from the existing list on that page, make it into a sortable table on cartoon name, year, and Collection #, to make it all easy to find.  A sampling of the bonus features can be added to sections in the Looney Tunes Golden Collection article. (Some means of identifying which disk has which cartoons and listing these out is a good thing given the culture influence of these works.)  However, an article for each individual volume is overkill.  --M ASEM  06:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Noting that my suggestion is more towards a merge, not deletion, but I am noting that it is only a merge in the sense that these should be replaced with redirects, not necessary retention of the info on these pages. --M ASEM 11:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Merging the articles would make the merged article way too long. Steelbeard1 (talk) 12:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note the suggested plan of merging. The list of available shorts would be placed on a second page and in a table to allow a number of ways of sorting (including by-volume).  The full list of DVD extras are not appropriate for WP, though mentioning the types of extras in section volume's section on the single page would be appropriate, in addition to the critical response to each volume. --M ASEM  13:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for making an interesting, and I think a valid and quite workable suggestion that would address the major issues with these individual volumes while also improving the main article. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 14:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Aren't the individual articles being discussed "second pages" already? Steelbeard1 (talk) 17:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * They are secondary pages, but they have too much detail per WP:NOT. This is not to assert than any one of them is not notable, but that instead, a more comprehensive article(s) can be obtained by addressing the collection as a whole (all 6 DVD sets, now) with one article describing what the general effort has been done to improve the cartoons, the general content of each volume (not detailed lists of DVD extras), and the reception of each volume and the series as a whole; the second one would be the list of the individual cartoons within the volumes (which, undeniably, is important because many of the individual tunes are independently notable)  The only information lost by this rearrangement would be the lists of DVD extras, which is just extraneous. --M ASEM  14:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep -It is a valid start on a notable release, but admittedly it is missing some paragraphs of text which would improve it beyond its current status. I say keep and expand.  Dr. Blofeld       White cat 09:09, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. These articles are well organized and surprisingly NPOV without puffery and filler. This gives a reasonable overview of the subject, which is, I believe one of the most notable cartoon empires in the history of the world - I may be overstating that. Disney is known for extensive marketing and coverage of all their properties so there is little doubt that reviews exist and editors have done a good job at keeping the articles free of nonsense. The concerns raised all seem to be clean-up issues. -- Banj e  b oi   23:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep, The articles are definitely well put together as zapfino said. Also, they do have notable significance.Smallman12q (talk) 00:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - The DVDs are notable and the articles are appropriate. Even if the articles couls stand improvement, that is not an apprpriate reason to delete. Rlendog (talk) 01:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions.  -- Hiding T 12:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Evidently notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment OK, I've taken time to add a little to the articles. At least two in the series have won release-of-the-year awards, and reviews of individual releases are all over mainstream media, including at least one Oxford University Press publication. These articles are outside my editing interest and expertise. But it's obvious that much, much more work can be done on these, and that they can be expanded greatly. I so reason why each article could not be built up to FA status. Most of the reviews note that the extras take up more disc space than do the cartoons. The extras receive almost as much critical attention as do the shorts. So I do not think the proposed merge with an article listing only the shorts is acceptable. These are simply notable-- highly notable-- releases. Though my opinion of this AfD have been twisted, I'll state it again, I think this AfD is absolutely ludicrous. Dekkappai (talk)
 * Keep The DVD releases are individually notable, and have each been covered in reliable sources. Here is even a reliable source for the fact that Volume 2 was covered in another reliable source! DHowell (talk) 02:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. A look at the Google News links in the Article Rescue Squadron tags reveal that almost all of these sets have been discussed in reliable sources such as The New Yorker, Forbes, and The Washington Post. The one exception would appear to be Volume 1, which has much less coverage for some reason. However, I think that, given the fact that the notability of the other sets has been established, Volume One could be considered worthy of an article as the first volume in a notable series. Also, one question: why isn't Looney Tunes Golden Collection: Volume 6 nominated here as well?--Unscented (talk) 12:43, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't notice a sixth article had been created until after this AfD had already received comments. Didn't think it would be appropriate to add it after that. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 15:29, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Even if it were, say, a typical TV released in groups by Season, having a basic sumamry of the contents of the dvd sets (even just a list of episodes - and this current article is barely more than a list of "episodes") i would think would fall into the scope of Wikipedia. I have all 6 volumes, and frankly there's a LOT of material(24 discs, with around 15 shorts + bonus material on each disc). It's much easier to come check wikipedia to find a specific video, than sort through all the discs. Now I admit this next reason may give some of you reason to say its a comercial entry, but I've also used the DVD entries to decide that i do/dont need to buy/borrow/rent/whatever other Loony Tunes dvds - to check for duplication of videos. Alienburrito (talk) 07:05, 8 February 2009 (UTC)alienburrito
 * Strong keep per Unscented, DHowell, Colonel Warden, Rlendog, Smallman12q, Dr. Blofeld, Pastor Theo, FreeRangeFrog, Dekkappai, ArcAngel, DavidRF, MacGyverMagic. I don't know if I have anything to add to there excellent comments. Ikip (talk) 18:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * KEEP I like reading this article, and so do a lot of other people. It has a lot of interesting information. This topic has been cited in the media a lot. And it's not as if wikipedia is running out of storage space. Grundle2600 (talk) 01:00, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - there is a tremendous difference between not having any coverage in reliable sources and not citing reliable sources: the former is a very strong reason for deletion under the appropriate notability guideline; the latter is not a reason to delete without first trying to locate such coverage. In this case, all five DVD have had extensive coverage, both at release and in reviews. In addition, some of these have had sales counts reported. The importance of the contents of those DVDs should be beyond question... and they are. B.Wind (talk) 04:07, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I feel I need to put my two cents in. Normally I'd agree with those who say Wikipedia isnt a sales catalog, but as many have pointed out, This isnt a typical dvd series. There's no chrolological order to the videos. It'ts not say, Star Trek, with movie releases numbered 1 through...whatever, and tv episodes released in Season 1, Season 2...etc...


 * 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.