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. Prodego ^talk 01:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Self-Destruction of The Ultimate Warrior[edit]

WWE DVD's are not-notable enough to have their own article on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a website what lists DVD's; it is an information source that is meant to given people information. This article does give people info; but it is pure-fancruft. Films are all sorts of different things, WWE DVD's (of this type) go through the same format of reviewing somebody's career.

I'm also nominating:

• 20 Years Too Soon: The Superstar Billy Graham Story
• Andre The Giant (DVD)
• Bloodbath: Wrestling's Most Incredible Steel Cage Matches
• Bloodsport - ECW's Most Violent Matches
• Born To Controversy: The Roddy Piper Story
• Bret "Hit Man" Hart: The Best There Is, The Best There Was, The Best There Ever Will Be
• Brian Pillman: Loose Cannon
• Hulk Hogan: The Ultimate Anthology
• Mick Foley's Greatest Hits And Misses
• Rey Mysterio: 619
• The Rise and Fall of ECW
• Shawn Michaels: Boyhood Dream
• The History of the WWE Championship
• The Ultimate Ric Flair Collection
• The Undertaker: This Is My Yard
• Tombstone: The History of The Undertaker
• Viva Las Divas of the WWE
• WWE Divas Do New York

I might not of completed this delete request, can you check for me if I haven't. Davnel03 20:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The Self-Destruction of the Ultimate Warrior, Relist all others. There are at least three reviews of the Ultimate Warrior DVD in the wild[1][2][3], thereby passing WP:N, and notability (or non-notability) is not an automatic given with any of these titles. hateless 22:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep All of these are more then notable. Kris Classic 22:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep They are useful reference points. Darrenhusted 00:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep All are notable, except maybe the Divas one. TJ Spyke 00:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notability is demonstrated here. — MichaelLinnear 00:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Unless notable reviews (or mentions) of them can be found, they should probably be deleted. Wikipedia shouldn't be turned into a DVD guide, just because people like it. I know there's a guideline about like it, I can't think of the name right now though. RobJ1981 01:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Various I'm not sure if a mass nomination is the right thing here. I don't think most of these need their own pages, violating WP:NOT (directory, indiscriminate info). It's very hard for me to give a clear vote, but I would Weak Keep the Warrior DVD due to its nature and various lawsuits/etc., Merge/Redirect most of the biographical ones, which basically are just a match listing and borderline spam. The biographical ones are just rehashes of amazon.com listings. Delete the Diva DVDs, WWE Championship, ECW (Violent matches) and Steel Cage. Merge "Rise and Fall of ECW", since their history is well documented on the main pages. That should cover them all, but I think portions of this should be relisted. I think the Diva ones should go for sure, I don't think there's a big listing of all the Playboy DVDs anywhere. Booshakla 02:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fake TV wrestling cruft lacks sources to prove notability. Edison 06:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The user above obviously already dislikes wrestling, so I feel his comment should not considered. Kris Classic 14:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I like TV wrestling. It was better in the old days when it was lower budget. The article still lacks good sources. Notability is not determined by whether I like it. Edison 20:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep most of these are biographical in nature dealing with the careers/history of the subjects who all meet the notability requirement, they are produced by the number one wrestling company in the world sold through some of the biggest US & International DVD retail chains so they're not "insignificant" either, I agree that some of them could be expanded but that's a different matter MPJ-DK 06:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep These are fine for wiki also some of them have been played on Sky Sports in the UK. Also I watched Bret Hart one on TWC about a month ago now. Govvy 09:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. In response to MPJ-DK: Playboy and other entertainment is also sold in major retail: there isn't mass articles of Playboy DVDs listed here. Same goes for all the sports DVDs (for major events, bloopers and so on). Being sold in major retailers isn't enough to support keeping them. RobJ1981 17:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment do the playboy DVDs have bios on the people in them? are there documentaries? The fact that they're produced by the biggest wrestling company in the world, mainly about people who qualify as "Notable" and sold world wide in major retail stores certain adds to the "notabilty" of the product, considering that the decission to delete a lot of RoH DVDs was "well they're a fringe wrestling product". Add to the fact that some have been shown in the UK and elsewhere and I'd say that most of these DVDs do in fact warrant an entry - one big collective list or individual pages, whichever. And in closing, what there is or isn't for Playboy isn't really relevant in this conversation at all that's like saying "Well they don't close the schools because of snow in the Bahamas" MPJ-DK 20:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Playboy: like WWE, is a well known company with lots of DVDs out. Wikipedia shouldn't be turned into a DVD guide. Also to expand about Playboy a little: yes they do have some bio DVDs, as well as normal ones. WWE has bio DVDs and regular DVDs and so on. That's how it's relevant. Some airing on UK: fine, keep those. But ones that haven't: probably should be deleted. As for "elsewhere", some of the DVDs have aired on PPV: that doesn't add much, considering Playboy has PPV specials, as does many things. Not everything on PPV should have an article here. RobJ1981 22:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I'd be in favour of more information on the DVD pages than just simple matchlistings. Whether they stay or go, at present most of them are not very useful. Suriel1981 01:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. Agree with MPJ-DK. Normy132 04:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Just to let you all know, Sky Sports have got the UK rights to play all biographical wrestler DVDs. So all those that are biographical in nature could be played on Sky sports. btw the one's already played in the UK are Andre the Giant, Bret Hart and The Undertaker: This Is My Yard. The other Undertaker one is going to be aired and Roddy Piper's is going to be aired also. The only one I can exclude from that list for sure is Bloodbath. Govvy 09:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable enough. --sunstar net^talk 10:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge any notable detail from the biographical DVDs into the appropriate wrestler articles and make note of anything interesting on the DVD in the wrestlers' "trivia" sections. Merge comments from The Rise and Fall of ECW into the ECW article where they are not already discussed and the same with History of the WWE Championship. Delete Bloodbath, Bloodsports, and the Divas DVDs, since they are simple collections of matches and fluff respectively. --Dave. 12:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/Merge. These articles are really only notable as part of some sort of DVD buyer's guide, which Wikipedia is not. I have trouble imagining that these articles will pass this tenet of WP:N: "a topic should be notable enough that the information about it will be from unbiased and unaffiliated sources." The only unbiased and unaffiliated sources for these DVDs are likely to be product information at sites like Amazon.com, and maybe one or two reviews in reliable publications. Croctotheface 16:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this is completely un-refed trivia. Are we to have an article on every DVD ever. This is not IMDB or Amazon. NBeale 22:58, 26 February 2007 (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.