Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Ultimate Matrix Collection

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/Redirect to The Matrix (franchise)#DVD releases. --MelanieN (talk) 22:53, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Ultimate Matrix Collection

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

This article does not demonstrate any notability to the wider world, and seems to be pure advertising. It has been noted on the article's talk page in 2012 that the article "seems to come straight from Amazon", and I agree with this assessment. --110.20.234.69 (talk) 22:18, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- I've completed the nomination on behalf of the above IP. For my own part, I didn't find any separate notability for this particular set. --Finngall ^talk 22:41, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. Any useful info can be merged to The Matrix (franchise)#DVD releases where this is already mentioned. A redir would keep the history if anyhtign is copied in such a way that attribution should be preserved. DES ^(talk) 22:52, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per DESiegel: I can imagine the article being recreated by a fan if there isn't a redirect in place. This particular release carries the "Animatrix," I think. All relevant information can be handled in a single sentence in the parent article. Hithladaeus (talk) 01:47, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It's extremely rare that a compilation set would become notable enough to merit its own article and normally this sort of thing is reserved for music albums since those can chart and show how it's independently notable. Movie sets rarely meet this criteria because ultimately there's rarely ever enough to truly warrant its own article. There are some reviews here and there like these reviews from DVD Talk, DVD Verdict and EW, but so far I'm not entirely seeing a great argument for where this would warrant its own entry. The strongest argument I can think of is that it'd be easier to list all of the features on an individual page, but keeping an article just so we can have a DVD extra listing isn't really a good reason for inclusion. I'll see what else I can find, but offhand I'm leaning towards a merge and redirect. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:54, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am finding some mention of the set in academic sources, but largely because it was used as a source for academics to discuss the film series as a whole rather than the specific set. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:56, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That sounds as if it has become the critical text for scholars. In literature (and film studies is often a subset of literature in the US), academic practice is to rely upon a particular "critical edition" for all references to primary text. It doesn't exactly make the edition notable, quite. Some of the standard critical editions of some works definitely are notable achievements, but probably not to a broad audience (e.g. I doubt the wide world would care that Guthkelch and D. Nichol Smith's edition of one of Swift's early works for Oxford is still the critical edition or applaud the things it did). Hithladaeus (talk) 18:08, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So in other words it'd be something that would be interesting to mention in the release section for the film series but not really something that would merit its own article? Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:03, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:51, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:51, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:52, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per DESiegel. There is nothing supporting the notability of this specific set that could not be discussed there. bd2412 T 19:05, 18 June 2015 (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.