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 no consensus. Most "delete" !votes have a strong policy-based rationale, but while some "keep" !votes are nothing more than "I like it", several others are also policy based. Hence, there is currently no consensus to delete this list. Several participants remark on the presence of much unnecessary detail, so strict editing seems needed.. However, that is not a reason to delete but to improve the article. No prejudice to another nomination once the pruning has been done and the list is still perceived to be unencyclopedic. Randykitty (talk) 10:31, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Doctor Who home video releases[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

List of Doctor Who UMD releases (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Massive promo page. Fails WP:NOT, WP:DEL4, and per WP:DEL14. Complete advertisement. scope_creep^Talk 14:39, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Lists, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 14:42, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yes, its too promotional. Agletarang (talk) 16:56, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would agree with the above. There are other places where the issue of Doctor Who home video releases can be covered in more appropriate detail (ie in the individual season/story/episode articles) and in an informative way. I do not think a list is the way to do this. Equally, I would not that if this is deleted then I would suggest that the futures of the related List of Doctor Who UMD releases, List of Doctor Who videotape releases and List of Doctor Who Laserdisc releases should probably discussed as well. Dunarc (talk) 21:09, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think List of Doctor Who UMD releases should be included on this Afd, as it doesn't have a single proper reference. scope_creep^Talk 22:30, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This has only come up because the list article (which has been in its present format for years) was split through this consensus Talk:List of Doctor Who home video releases#Splitting proposal. It is in no way shape or form a promo page. It states facts about each formats release. The use of Amazon for past release dates is permitted here WP:RSPAMAZON. For a show that has been on (with occasional gaps) for nearly 60 years the home media list articles are preferable to forcing readers to search through 100's of articles for each individual story. MarnetteD|Talk 00:54, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per MarnetteD. Say what you will about the existence and/or quality of the list, but this is absolutely not a "complete advertisement", and such an accusation threatens to discredit the reputation of every single editor across its almost 18-year history—though, if this were the intention, it would be unsurprising, considering the nominator's recent false accusations of paid editing, ignorance of consensus, misuse of CSD, and misunderstanding of Wikipedia essays. – Rhain ☔ 01:19, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see this is a commercial, it not written as a promotion for anything. Has 770 references. Dream Focus 07:08, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment And what about 80 odd links to Amazon that makes it effectively a shop front for that company, on Wikipedia. And the List of Doctor Who UMD releases which is all Amazon references. scope_creep^Talk 07:19, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep: A crucial point you're ignoring is that the article has 770 references. 80 of those being Amazon is less than 10%. (Mind you, it looks like there are more than 80, but it's still less than one-third anyway.) Per WP:AMAZON and WP:RSPAMAZON, they are being used to cite titles and release dates. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 07:47, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Quantity isn't a metric in any domain, only quality of the references is, so that is not an argument. So far I've seen lots of discussion yesterday about the fact many editors have added these in and the intent is not to promote a product. But the effect is to promote these products. The overall effect. The intent may not be there but that is what the effect on the ground is. You have 80+ links, now that is 80 product page links. That is more you would find in average shop of somebody selling t-shirts. When the WP:RSPAMAZON guideline was drawn up, the intent was never to have something that completly subverts the five pillars and Wikipedia Terms of Use. WP is designed to be free at the point of delivery and have somebody endanger it with articles like this; that is completly beyond the pale. There is no argument you can make, "ah sorry gov, we never meant it" is completly missing the point, disengenous and reckless and outside consensus. That is the result. And its typicaly a fancruft argument, that somehow yous are outside consensus, because its something special, its a Dr Who who. Dr Who fans, including myself, I come from the UK, do not need a Amazon shop front on Wikipedia to prove a particular string of machine data is valid to the extent that it endangers Wikipedia. Its not done anywhere else, and shouldn't be done here. scope_creep^Talk 08:00, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If "quantity isn't a metric", why do you keep bringing up the "80 odd links"? Considering the fact that the majority of links on the article are not Amazon, I still find the argument that this is an "Amazon shop front" impossible to accept. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 08:09, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you do, the fancruft folk are all of the same mentality. None of them are involved in ethically trying to uphold good practice, merely interesting in listing the information like blind moles having the need to dig a tunnel, "we need to do all costs, don't stop lads", with no compunction to standards. In the last two months, I have had cycle folk bare face lying through their teeth as did the radio folk to preserve their approach to work, chess folk who were of a similar mentality and couldn't accept what they were doing was outside consensus and the railyway folk who think it was ok to create reams of railway stations articles with no references. Simply copying the information from one place to another with no historical analysis in a similar manner to this article. No value added. What is the point of it. I know if has value to the Dr Who fan, but does that mean Wikipedia must be subverted to satisfy them. scope_creep^Talk 08:54, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes, scope. I could tell yesterday that you were bad at assuming good faith, but "None of them are involved in ethically trying to uphold good practice" (followed by a rant) is a new low. How about you try to focus on the content, rather than the character of the editors? Thanks. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 09:09, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These are experiences at Afd and other venues in the last 2-3 months and are observations. I'm not trying to covert you, because your unconvertible. I'm trying to persuade the audience.scope_creep^Talk 09:16, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why this needs repeating but, per the policy guideline, "Amazon is a reliable source for basic information about a work (such as release date, ISBN, etc.)" Also if your experiences at AFD are leading you to violate WP:CIVILITY and WP:NPA policies it might be a good thing to step away from them for a bit. I have seen 1000s of AFDs in my time and violating those two policies does not "persuade" the audience. MarnetteD|Talk 09:33, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTCATALOGUE. The lists are predominantly sourced by links to venues to purchase the releases on video/DVD (such as Amazon). It's not encyclopedic to list each and every single release on home media one can ever own. Also we have recently pretty much established a precedent for lists such as these:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Only Fools and Horses home video releases

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Coronation Street home video releases

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Arthur and Postcards from Buster home video releases

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of BBC home video releases

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Guild Home Video and Pathé releases

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Blue's Clues home video releases

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of X-Men (TV series) video releases. Ajf773 (talk) 09:53, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've added List of Doctor Who UMD releases into Afd as well, as it hasn't got a single redeeming feature. Its all Amazon references, primary and non-rs. scope_creep^Talk 17:24, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

UMD article refs have been replaced, with mostly secondary refs (and none from Amazon, not that it really matters). – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 06:32, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's certainly notable enough and I don't see merit to the advertisement argument. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:38, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Rhain and MarnetteD Etron81 (talk) 21:08, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't addresses the primary problem with your advertising article and merely stating keep isn't going to cut the mustard, because as soon as goes to a no-consensus vote, I plan to repost it back to Afd. If that not effective then its arbcom. scope_creep^Talk 21:18, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So if you don't get things your way, you're going to ignore recommendations and keep trying until you do? Bold assertion. ArbCom is incredibly overkill for this matter. Terms such as "your advertising article" are not only unhelpful but incorrect, and seem to imply that Etron is both the article "owner" (not true) and a paid editor (not true). – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 01:32, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't imply that at all. I recognise there has been some movement in the work that has been done fix the UMD article and I really gladly welcome it, so perhaps there is an intent to change your part. I sincerly hope you do give a toss as a group and somehow it will be fixed. I do intend to find all the Doctor Who articles and review all of them and get them onto the NPP queue so they are more eyes looking at them. Any that I do find, that are choked with advertising links to Amazon or any shop, are going to Afd or will redirected. You will have fight on your hands and it will inveitably end up at Arbcom scope_creep^Talk 08:15, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:28, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Rhain and MarnetteD . Christian75 (talk) 19:56, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you stating keep when this type of information is explicity prohibited by WP:NOTDIRECTORY and and whole think is an advertisement. scope_creep^Talk 22:39, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems like a useful list to me. ButterCashier (talk) 10:48, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your a self-confessed Dr Who fan and work in that areas, so your coming from a fancruft angle and not offering anything that makes Wikipedia better, merely repeating the same tired statements. This list can be stored anywhere on the web, it is useful, but it doesn't need to be on Wikipedia. It can stored in any Dr Who game pedia. scope_creep^Talk 12:19, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You will need a better reason other than WP:USEFUL. Ajf773 (talk) 23:54, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can we please get some comments that are not fancruft led. scope_creep^Talk 12:22, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTCATALOGUE, WP:PROMOTION. Amazon is not a reliable source and doesn't pretend to be. Wikipedia's policy on Verifiability states that "Articles should be based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Amazon fails that. It often gets dates wrong. Amazon's main purpose is to sell, not to inform. And per WP:NOTDATABASE -To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. As explained in § Encyclopedic content above, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. A lot of the other links in the article seem to come from Doctor Who's website. As a result, this feels like nothing more than a promotional page serving as transactional sales for Amazon. I think this information could be useful but I think it's best left to the fan sites. We aren't here to sell; we're here to edit.Wozal (talk) 04:13, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Use of Amazon for confirming release dates appears to be acceptable per WP:AMAZON and as this appears to be the backbone of the nominator's argument, the rationale seems very weak. There is also contextual information here (the article isn't just tables) and thus I don't believe WP:NOTDIRECTORY has been violated. And no, I don't watch Doctor Who. NemesisAT (talk) 18:03, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep LISTN Lightburst (talk) 22:57, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you elaborate on that? Just stating LISTN doesn't mean much. Ajf773 (talk) 23:54, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - note to closing administrator - I closed the discussion and left an extensive rationale. However after a good faith request to undo my close by the AFD nominator, I have undone for an administrator to review. MaxnaCarta (talk) 09:14, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete disagree about it being promotional at all, Amazon can and is being used as an appropriate reference. The information presented is in too much detail and doesn't provide encyclopedic value. Runtimes, every time an episode was released, and every country, isn't notable. WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Thanks, Indagate (talk) 09:54, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Too much detail sounds like a reason to edit the article to remove said detail, not to delete the article entirely. NemesisAT (talk) 09:56, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If the detail is removed then it wouldn't be long enough for a standalone article and just kept at the main and season articles. Thanks, Indagate (talk) 10:03, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.