Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of HD DVD releases (2nd nomination)

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. Sandstein 08:56, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of HD DVD 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)

WP:INDISCRIMINATE. --wooden superman 13:22, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this should probably be speedy deleted under WP:CSD#G4 per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of HD DVD releases. --wooden superman 16:46, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Indiscriminate, no WP:LISTN. FOARP (talk) 15:45, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, useful and interesting, I can't see how it fits Indiscriminate, and it does no harm (if some readers find it useful, why remove it? When a still good ship is put out to pasture just let it sail. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:15, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Really Randy? Surely you know better than to use WP:USEFUL, WP:INTERESTING and WP:NOHARM as !votes to keep? That's a hat trick of arguments to avoid right there!!! --wooden superman 16:43, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Those, as well as "it doesn't fit indiscriminate" (and thank you for your link to an essay). Randy Kryn (talk) 16:52, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:48, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:48, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTCATALOGUE. Ajf773 (talk) 21:24, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This list has no real basic structure and seems pretty pointless. Govvy (talk) 23:22, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as listcruft that definitely goes against WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTCATALOGUE. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:53, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The page is useful, and not unlike countless other pages on Wikipedia that compile lists of things in a central location. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mercennarius (talk • contribs) 17:44, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:USEFUL isn't a great argument to support retaining an article. Ajf773 (talk) 19:21, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Another link to the same essay not vetted by the community. An article being useful and interesting to Wikipedia readers, while still maintaining an encyclopedic tone, seems like a fine point to make in defense of keeping a page. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:19, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ONLYESSAY - we might be hitting meta here – The Grid (talk) 17:45, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Policy comes before reader interest. Ajf773 (talk) 20:12, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So using a subsection of the unvetted essay to say using "only essay" shouldn't be used. A Catch-a-22. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:23, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Randy Kryn: It's pointing out why essays are mentioned and why you should also state your opinion with the discussion. In other words, you shouldn't put the essay as the only reason. There's no catch 22. In fact, the argument provided from a previous AfD in 2007 gives caution that consensus can change. (and most likely explains why it wasn't speedy deleted when recreated in 2016) – The Grid (talk) 14:08, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. – The Grid (talk) 16:56, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete useful or not. this looks like a catalogue more than a valid list. Why can't this be a category?Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 22:52, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We can't have a cateogry as being released on any particular media format is non-defining. --wooden superman 09:19, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a valid topic of historical interest, a category would not have the company and release dates. No valid reason for deletion except WP:IDONTLIKEIT Atlantic306 (talk) 21:51, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is written like a catalogue. Very valid reason for deletion as it is what Wikipedia is not. Ajf773 (talk) 09:47, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a valid reason to keep. It's indiscriminate listcruft. It's like having articles on List of 8-track cartridge releases, List of VHS releases, etc, etc. --wooden superman 09:40, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:21, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:ILIKEIT and I really want to !vote keep but it's a clear-cut WP:INDISCRIMINATE case. Wikipedia isn't a compendium which lists every publication ever in a given format, you go to the British Library for that. SITH (talk) 23:02, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clear violation of WP:INDISCRIMINATE, not encyclopediac content --DannyS712 (talk) 03:57, 29 December 2018 (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.