Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mystery Science Theater 3000 video 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:35, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Mystery Science Theater 3000 video releases

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not a notable subject; shows are released on home video all the time. We don't need this essential catalog to tell us which episodes are on which set Beerest355 Talk 03:36, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Beerest355  Talk 03:37, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Beerest355  Talk 03:37, 10 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. This isn't the Criterion Collection. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:29, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep No policy-based reason for deletion has been articulated. MST3K is indeed a notable subject, and a list of video releases, like a list of episodes, is based on the notability of the list set as a whole: List of X elements is notable if X is notable. Jclemens (talk) 06:05, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Rebuttal. "List of X elements is notable if X is notable"? That contradicts WP:NOTINHERITED. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:05, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't. From NOTINHERITED, regarding "subordinate" elements of notable topics as we have here: "Often, a separate article is created for formatting and display purposes; however, this does not imply an 'inherited notability' per se, but is often accepted in the context of ease of formatting and navigation, such as with books and albums." In other words, it's a question of whether the detail is relevant and encyclopedic or excessive and trivial (i.e., does it belong in an article on the series), and then a question of whether WP:SIZE dictates a WP:SPINOUT. AFD after AFD has demonstrated consensus for this view, particularly if this is comparable to a list of episodes. postdlf (talk) 16:37, 10 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - Video releases are routinely included in articles about film and television. A full listing within the lead article for the series would overwhelm it; this is a legitimate spin-out article. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 11:16, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * So why do we need this full list? Just say "the show has been released on DVD." That wouldn't be overwhelming. Beerest355 Talk 23:14, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * But the show in its entirety has not been released on DVD and because of rights issues with the underlying films likely never will be. Look at any multi-season TV series article and you're likely to see a video release section that gives the dates that each season was released in the various regions. This article serves the same function, only this series is not released by season. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 08:17, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * That's a bad analogy. DVD of TV series and movies are of original works. What we have here are just packagings of films that just happened to have been reaired on a particular show. A better comparison would be to something like a CD of songs played on American Bandstand. Mentions could be made in the individual film articles. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:17, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * That's not at all an accurate description of this series (or these DVDs); it does not merely replay or package movies. Have you never watched it? There is always substantial original content, in the form of the running commentary that mocks the film as it plays (both the audio and the silhouettes of the characters overlayed across the bottom of the screen as the audience, often doing pantomime interactions with the movies), and in multiple comedy segments with the actors and robots puppets that play before, after, and at various interruptions in the movies. postdlf (talk) 14:17, 11 November 2013 (UTC)


 * You guys, just saying. I don't see what is notable about having an entire list. It has no place in the main article, but why does it have any place here at all? The subject of video releases are not notable. Beerest355 Talk 23:14, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, not even a notable show. --2601:C:4380:50:81C8:ACEB:5048:D437 (talk) 18:23, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * ...what?  Taylor Trescott  - my talk + my edits 18:30, 16 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:35, 18 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - Home video releases of TV shows are generally tracked. The nature of MST3K and its publishing releases do make it more complicated than most (its had two different distributors and there's no "season" releases due to size and licensing issues). There are probably some simplifications that could be made but its not drastically going to cut down the size as to be included in the main MST3K article. --M ASEM (t) 01:02, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep per Masem and my comments above. The delete !votes so far are based on a complete misunderstanding of the subject matter and/or applicable guidelines. postdlf (talk) 16:40, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep per IAR. Going strictly by letter of policy, this really shouldn't exist, as I doubt any reliable sources have covered it in any real detail.  However, it also provides valuable information that aids reader understanding of MST3K, which has a far more complex video release history than most shows and even serious fans often find confusing.  So we have a contradictory situation where an article should neither be kept nor deleted, where the ideal situation would be for it to be a section in the main article but it's simply too large.  Since the information is in no way controversial, isn't promotional, and does help reader understanding of the broader concept, keep as slightly out of policy but in the best interests of the encyclopedia. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  18:53, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTADVERTISING. The show is the notable topic here, the packaging and medium isn't. Betty Logan (talk) 17:23, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * That doesn't make much sense, as the video releases are covered as an element of the topic of the show as is standard. This has already been commented on above, such as by Masem. postdlf (talk) 18:30, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Covering home video releases is usually standard as per WP:WEIGHT i.e. we tend to briefly summarise releases across different media on articles where notability of the topic has already been established. That is quite different to having articles solely devoted to its release in one medium. Like the nominator says, it reads like a catalog and there is no detailed coverage in reliable sources of the video releases. The list as it stands is basically a sales brochure. As the editor above notes, it technically fails the letter of the policy, except I don't agree with his assessment that IAR is justified in this case. Betty Logan (talk) 19:57, 20 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. This is a very valuable reference to an ongoing licensing fiasco. Unlike other shows (and like Criterion) they are not able to simply release episodes at will, as they have to negotiate rights with the current copyright holders of each and every film they study/ridicule.  It will likely take another decade before they can release all 200+ movies, and meanwhile, this is a great article for identifying how the movies are/will be available. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.148.60.44 (talk • contribs)
 * 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.