Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MGM Movie Legends


 * 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   delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:42, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

MGM Movie Legends

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

Contested PROD. Non-notable collection of otherwise notable films. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 17:21, 9 November 2010 (UTC) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:22, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:34, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep This article does not contain advertising copy, prices, or locations on where to buy the products. The article is used for informational and educational purposes only; helping people become aware of films that are connected by genre, studio, or filmmaker and can only help to promote the film community at Wikipedia. Similarly themed articles in content and style have existed on Wikipedia for years; see: Midnite Movies, Dragon Dynasty, The Criterion Collection, 20th Century Fox Cinema Classics Collection. Wikipedia can have product pages if they are used for the aforementioned reasons; see: Proactiv Solution, Heinz Tomato Ketchup, Ibanez AW Series. If this article were to be deleted based on the proposed reasoning, then thousands of Wikipedia articles would have to be deleted for the very same reason. Mlamarre79 (talk) 19:06, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Notability has nothing to do with "not contain[ing] advertising," and other things (or having to delete them) are less relevant than you might think. Being helpful is also irrelevant.  -- N  Y  Kevin  @879, i.e. 20:05, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Also I'm not going to repeat the above comment at every film collection listed nearby for which identical "Keep" !votes have been made. That doesn't mean it doesn't apply.  -- N  Y  Kevin  @882, i.e. 20:09, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Delete per nom. The question is whether this collection is notable as a collection (not whether the individual titles are notable -- they are) to anyone outside the MGM home video marketing department. By contrast, The Criterion Collection is notable as a collection as seen from its Google News hits. This collection isn't. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:53, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep There does seem to be some third party coverage of this collection, including reviews by The New York Times, Chicago Tribune and Chicago Sun-Times among others. Seems enough to source a respectable article. Redfarmer (talk) 11:09, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: no articulation of notability, and not every repackaging of notable works is itself notable. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:57, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for rescue by the Article Rescue Squadron.  Snotty Wong   chatter 15:23, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Unconvincing notability, article is completely unreferenced. References given above aren't convincing.  Snotty Wong   chatter 15:23, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete not a culturally notable collection like Criterion and not a technical innovation like Superbit, this is just a label slapped on a DVD product line. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  19:46, 17 November 2010 (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.