Deletion of Looney Tunes Golden Collection: Volume 1 (2nd nomination)

Comment: No sources, no encyclopaedic content, no articulation of notability. Just lots of explicit . Wikifanpaedia at its worst
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:ILIKEIT)

Comment: No sources means this fails . While the articles may be |useful to some users, without any independent, secondary, reliable sources these articles are purely |original research. Keep !votes above have no basis in policy
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:ILIKEIT||WP:OR)

Comment: A look at the Google News links in the |Article Rescue Squadron tags reveal that almost all of these sets have been discussed in |reliable sources such as The New Yorker, Forbes, and The Washington Post. The one exception would appear to be Volume 1, which has much less coverage for some reason. However, I think that, given the fact that the notability of the other sets has been established, Volume One could be considered worthy of an article as the first volume in a notable series. Also, one '''question''': why isn't Looney Tunes Golden Collection: Volume 6 nominated here as well
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron (WP:ARS||WP:RS)

Comment: there is a tremendous difference between ''not having'' any coverage in |reliable sources and ''not citing'' reliable sources: the former is a very strong reason for deletion under the appropriate notability guideline; the latter is not a reason to delete without first trying to locate such coverage. In this case, all five DVD have had extensive coverage, both at release and in reviews. In addition, some of these have had sales counts reported. The importance of the contents of those DVDs should be beyond question... and they are
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)