Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Popeye the Sailor (Warner DVD series)


 * 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  01:54, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Popeye the Sailor (Warner DVD series)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Not only is it filled with speculation and bias, virtually all of the useful information is already present in the main Popeye article. By linking the information on the DVD sets from the main article - which has now been done - this article becomes irrelevant. I suppose the authors figured that, with an article on Looney Tunes Golden Collection, there was a reason for this article, but that article handles specific information unique to it, and an article on the Popeye DVDs has no need for, say, something unique like a list of released shorts, because they're being done in chronological order. FuriousFreddy (talk) 01:15, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.   -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 01:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Speculation can be dealt with in the usual way and I can't see any bias. This looks like a spinoff article detailing the release of those videos in more detail than the main article. The individual video articles don't seem to mention all the legal stuff this one does. - Mgm|(talk) 10:58, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Read the main Popeye article, specifically the "Home Video" section. All of the "legal stuff" mentioned in this article is already contained in Popeye and Fleischer Studios (under "Copyright status"). A third article with an arbitrary title is unnecessary. The actual releases on the DVDs themselves are already mentioned in the same detail in the main Popeye article and in the article for each individual DVD release (which I already spent some time removing speculation, POV, personal reviews, etc). --FuriousFreddy (talk) 23:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. This series is similar to the Looney Tunes Golden Collection series in its importance and both series are from Warner Home Video. Steelbeard1 (talk) 12:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Full House DVDs are from Warner Home Video too, but I bet an "article overview" on the DVD series would be deleted. Unlike the Looney Tunes DDVDs, the Popeyes are being released in chronological order, so there's no need for an overview article like this. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 18:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep There are also articles about the chronological Three Stooges DVD's, and in all cases there are specials and features that don't exist anywhere else, that could stand to be discussed. The nominator clobbers everything from the articles and then complains that there's nothing in the articles. That's pretty offensive. Instead of clobbering it, some better citations are needed. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 14:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Instead of arbitrarily hanging citations onto it - a poor editing practice that should have been nipped in the bud years ago - it should be re-written so that it's informative rather than reading as biased. There's not much of a reason why an article on a DVD series needs to discuss the entire litigation history of the Popeye cartoons, especially when all of that information is already in the main article. I didn't touch this article, but yes I "clobbered" the other two because the "background" sections were filled with POV, colloquial language, and were, from an informational standpoint, useless. An encyclopedia article on a DVD release - which, to be honest, I hardly see a need for in this case - should discuss the DVD release. It's an encyclopedia article, not a critical review. We don't need a "background" for what's on it; we already have articles on Popeye cartoons and the histories of the studios that made them. Notice how the Looney Tunes Golden Collection articles discuss the DVDs, the restoration process, the content choices, etc. There's no overwrought sections on the histories of the Looney Tunes, or long discussions about Associated Artist Productions (topics already covered in detail elsewhere). In short, if you want to keep it, rewrite it and make it sound worthwhile. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 18:19, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, there's no article about the Three Stooges DVD series, and the individual DVD release articles remain concise and on topic. I didn't nominte the articles on the individual Popeye DVDs; I nominated this one. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 18:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge to Popeye article - the series is notable, the DVD series is manifestly not. Creating article pages for every boxset and repackaging of content is not appropriate; relevant information should be merged to the appropriate topics. Also note that AfD precendent with regard to DVD sets has generally been to merge to the main topic, and the existence of other articles is considered an "argument to avoid in deletion discussions". Some of us in WikiProject Films have already identified these other articles for upcoming merges or AfDs as appropriate. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 23:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge any useful content that is not already detailed in Popeye. This seems like an unnecessary duplicate of a section of the main article. — Erik  (talk • contrib) 15:03, 26 November 2008 (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.