Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Columbia Western Classics

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 delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:42, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Columbia Western Classics[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Non-notable collection of otherwise notable films. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 17:25, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:33, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article does not contain advertising copy, prices, or locations on where to buy the products. The article is used for informational and educational purposes only; helping people become aware of films that are connected by genre, studio, or filmmaker and can only help to promote the film community at Wikipedia. Similarly themed articles in content and style have existed on Wikipedia for years; see: Midnite Movies, Dragon Dynasty, The Criterion Collection, 20th Century Fox Cinema Classics Collection. Wikipedia can have product pages if they are used for the aforementioned reasons; see: Proactiv Solution, Heinz Tomato Ketchup, Ibanez AW Series. If this article were to be deleted based on the proposed reasoning, then thousands of Wikipedia articles would have to be deleted for the very same reason. Mlamarre79 (talk) 19:12, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Mlamarre79 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:12, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- The nominator isn't talking about the page's compliance with WP:ADVERT or WP:NPOV, he's claiming that the subject itself is non-notable since it has not "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (WP:GNG). The case is different in the examples you listed. For example, Midnite Movies cites two sources, both of which are reliable and independent of the subject. Guoguo12 --Talk-- 02:26, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:22, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The question is whether this collection is notable as a collection (not whether the individual titles are notable -- they are) to anyone outside the Columbia home video marketing department. By contrast, The Criterion Collection is notable as a collection as seen from its Google News hits. This collection isn't. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:54, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have to agree on this one. Can't find any significant third party coverage to indicate this particular collection is notable. Fails WP:PRODUCT. No prejudice to merging if any of the information here would be useful in another article. Redfarmer (talk) 11:17, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete same reasoning as with MGM Movie Legends, but with the added problem that this apparently never got off the ground, being used only for 5 movies and a box set. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:47, 17 November 2010 (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.