Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Vinegar Syndrome 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion.

I would have liked to accomodate those seeking a Merge but no one replied to my query asking for a target article to Merge this one to. But since it is a Soft Deletion, this article can be restored should you ever create that target article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Vinegar Syndrome releases[edit]

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

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

I'm the creator of this article. Following last month's deletion discussion of List of Criterion Collection releases (which ultimately resulted in that article being deleted), it seems that this article would fail an AfD just as well. Minor note: one difference between this article and the Criterion one is that all entries (at least the ones I contributed to the page) are accompanied by primary or secondary sources. However, the main guideline cited in the Criterion deletion discussion was WP:NOTDIRECTORY, which I believe is independent of whether or not the material in question is supported by citations. —Matthew / (talk) 20:09, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Visual arts, and Lists. — Karnataka ^talk 20:20, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. It fails WP:NOTCATALOGUE just the same as the other mentioned articles which were recently deleted. As the author requests deletion, can this be a speedy? Ajf773 (talk) 20:31, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lest we miss the forest for the trees, let's consider something like List of preserved films or a similar title as a merge target for all such lists, which would meet WP:NLIST thus avoiding the catalog issue. If people think we should, we can require secondary sources for each item as part of the inclusion criteria. I'm willing to put this together based on this and the other list after a REFUND. —siro χ o 22:56, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I support Siroxo's proposal and therefore !vote what he/she thinks best in order to achieve it.Merge (Sourced content) with/Redirect to List of preserved films? (NB- The secondary source requirement seems reasonable).-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:08, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to list of preserved films once it has been created as proposed above, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:55, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd love to accommodate some of your wishes for a Merge but without an existing target article to Merge to, this article will most likely be deleted. Here's another week to get something resembling a decent llist article together.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:00, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How would "preserved films" be defined in this context? Seems far too broad, and maybe even arbitrary. —Matthew / (talk) 21:16, 9 August 2023 (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.