Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/10 Years of Thomas and Friends

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 Merge to Thomas and Friends video releases - what fun for me the rest of the day! - Yomangani ^talk 22:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas the Tank Engine video releases[edit]

There's really something excessive when it takes me ten minutes to copy-and-paste all of the titles. Essentially, those articles are only "(Name) is a (media) release in (country)." and one or two short lists that are absolutely meaningless to the lay reader. No hope whatsoever for expansion. This situation can be summarized up to an apt "Who cares?" Interrobamf 13:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Those articles are added to this discussion:

Interrobamf 14:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete all as per nom. Strange listcruft/fancruft - these are articles about VHS videos of episodes, not episodes themselves. Don't forget to delete Category:Thomas_the_Tank_Engine_and_Friends_videos too Bwithh 13:37, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge into one big list. Long-running and strong-selling series of children's videos. We've kept countless movies, CDs, and video games that aren't nearly as popular as these. I haven't been able to find individual sales statistics for this bunch, but according to a 2002 Chicago Sun-Times article, in 2001 4.5 million Thomas videos were sold. At, say $15 a pop on average, that's almost $70 million dollars in that year alone. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:13, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But these are videos of several episodes each, some of which overlap with other videos. All or most of these programs were originally shown on TV. These seem to be the US releases as well, so they're not even the classic British episodes but US "translations". This is not the equivalent of an original CD album or an original video game. Bwithh 19:22, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into one list, per Starblind. RMS Oceanic 15:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- There is already a list, as absolutely worthless as it is, at Thomas and Friends video releases. Interrobamf 00:44, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. What is the reason to delete? "Who cares" is not a valid reason, and you've listed none. Actually, each of these could be expanded with a plot summary and credits. –RHolton ≡– 18:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These are not individual episodes. These are video releases of several episodes per video which seem to overlap with each other sometimes And TV broadcast has been the primary distribution means for these programs. Plus, these aren't even the British originals, they're American "translations". Bwithh 19:22, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- "Who cares?" is essentially an way of saying that Wikipedia is supposed to appeal to a general audience, which none of those articles do. Interrobamf 00:44, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where do you get the idea that Wikipedia should only appeal to a general audience? How would you define the phrase general audience? There are many many articles that rightly belong on Wikipedia that may not appeal to me or to you. These articles don't particularly appeal to me. That does not mean they should be deleted. –RHolton ≡– 15:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment these (or many of these) articles seem to have been created by a single purpose account[1]. Given that they focus on video releases of multiple episodes in the US, rather than the actual British original episodes that an actual fan would more logically focus on, there are grounds for thinking this is a commercial spam incident Bwithh 19:26, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Or it could just be someone who likes the Thomas videos. - Lex 20:32, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - appears to duplicate material found at Thomas_and_Friends_video_releases (see US video releases section of that list). A note to the nominator, next time copy and paste the articles from Category:Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends videos. Note to whoever suggested deleting the category, there are some UK videos in there as well. Carcharoth 00:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The only articles that aren't complete crap are Calling All Engines and On Site with Thomas. Two articles are not enough to sustain an category. Interrobamf 00:44, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then please take that issue to WP:CfD when this debate has finished and any articles here (if any) have been deleted. They will be better placed to judge whether two articles is enough to sustain a category. My feeling is that the category is incomplete, and more articles can be added, hence the deletion of the category would be premature. Carcharoth 10:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge If there's any useful information in these articles, they should be in one, completist article. Chip Unicorn 03:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all ~~at the correct title, as Carcharoth has noted that this may be a dupe~~. Very useful information. Plenty of room for expansion. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When I said it was duplicating material, that was an argument for deletion (after checking that all relevant information has been merged). This sort of material is far better as one big list, than lots of mini-lists. And expansion to plot summaries has alrady been done at the main Thomas the Tank engine articles (the ones about the original English broadcasts). Carcharoth 12:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I misread it. Simply keep all. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Useful information" is not a good criteria for encyclopedia articles. There are plenty of kinds of "useful information" such as detailed daily weather reports, local cinema listings, restaurant reviews, shopping guides, telephone directory listings, video game guides, recipe books, road maps, and DIY manuals etc etc etc which are not acceptable in Wikipedia as they are not encyclopedic. Bwithh 23:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I believe these can be with a little love and attention from the right editor(s). --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Care to show how they can be reasonably expanded? Will we be getting "development" sections or anyhting of the sort? Or are you simply stating as such, then letting this garbage rot while you do nothing to actually help? Really, if you're going "this can be expanded!", then do it instead of wandering around and just voting keep because it's easier to. Prove I'm wrong. Interrobamf 12:50, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - With that sort of attitude about it, it makes me less compelled to, for sure. But there's no episode information other than the title yet, no sales figures or chart information. I don't know where to look for much of that, and I try to keep from editing articles on subjects I'm unfamilar with, as is the case with Thomas. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - But certain enough to consider those articles as expandable and of worth, of course. Interrobamf 14:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Without a doubt. I don't know jack about math proofs either, but I know they're important, too. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Did you just suggest mathematical proofs are equivalent in importance to Thomas the Tank Engine video tape episode listings? These articles aren't expandable. What can you say about them that's distinct from articles about the episodes? You'd be reduced to describing the video packaging. Unless these were major major video successes, sales figures are very unlikely to be obtainable - this kind of data would be banal and unencyclopedic as well, even if you had detailed data (oh look, this video with episodes X,Y,Z sold better in the US market in 2001 than this video with episodes Y,Z,A,B did in 2003) Bwithh 23:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm saying I know roughly the same amount about mathematical proofs as I do Thomas the Tank Engine. These articles are certainly expandible, so your argument in that case is unknown. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        You still haven't indicated a way to meaningfully expand those articles. I don't consider "I dunno, but I'm still voting keep!" a valid argument. Where are the editors to expand these if you're not going to do it? Why aren't they part of this discussion? Interrobamf 04:26, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Then I'm not sure what else I can tell you. If you're not reading what I'm posting, I can't say much else. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        So you have no actual argument, then? Interrobamf 11:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move - Would be better placed within the Thomas the Tank Engine space, as subpages. As would be a good idea with all show specific pages. --Orbling 22:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand this suggestion. Subpages aren't functional in the main (article) namespace, and making pages that look like subpages is strongly discouraged. –RHolton ≡– 02:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move all of the above articles into Thomas and Friends video releases. The articles above are cluttering up the mainspace, and it is better to have them all in one article instead of all over the place. --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 12:49, 15 October 2006 (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.