Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/It (film series)

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. Missvain (talk) 02:28, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It (film series)

[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)

For the "WhAt AbOuT iNdIvIdUaL nOtAbIlItY" users, no. These three articles have the exact same issues. Plus, come on people, there's only three articles here. The TL:DR version is that there are only two films in each series and no evidence they definitely will be legitimate franchises. WP:ORG, WP:CONTENTFORK, and WP:TOOSOON are the primary issues, plus the fact that it's WP:CRYSTALBALL to assume these will be film series with more films.

These three series articles were created by KaitoNkmra23, who has created two other series articles that have been judged under the AFD court: A Quiet Place (film series), which ended with a Draftify consensus, and The Shining (franchise), which I have just nominated. It seems setting the template for articles about potential series is a common thing the user does, which I do respect and we could use more of those people. I would say Trolls (franchise) is worth keeping due to how much media is released under the Trolls brand and the fact that it is verifiably a franchise. However, there have been only two films in these "series" these three articles are about.

I am nominating these articles for the reasons provided in the two Afds I have mentioned. To state what A Quiet Place nominator Erik stated, "With two films, when comparing details, a reader can go from one article to another easily. With three films, a reader can go from an individual film's article to the film series article to readily see how all three films compare." To quote what I stated in The Shining AFD, "[These articles are] WP:Original research in assuming [they are] a [series], and the only thing [they] could be (and [are]) [are] a WP:CONTENTFORK of other articles." The development sections of these articles, for instance, are copied word-for-word, citation-by-citation, from the development sections of their respective films. 👨x🐱 (talk) 16:26, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also going against Draftify due to all of these articles' info being in other articles. 👨x🐱 (talk) 13:53, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:29, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, if they are deemed to be necessary for deletion I’ll kindly ask for them to be draftified. Though I am not in favour of the nominations and likely in the minority in this situation, I completely understand and respect the decision and will respect the outcome of the final consensus. KaitoNkmra23 talk 05:11, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Mocking other editors by dismising the topic of individual notability is in incredibly bad taste the way it's done here.★Trekker (talk) 08:19, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I want to second this. You could have brought up the topic of individual notability without doing it the way you have. While you definitely shouldn't WP:BITE the newbies, it's also important to remain WP:CIVIL overall. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:54, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So using Comic Sans is in bad taste...... Sure, sounds legit.👨x🐱 (talk) 13:58, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, I'm just messing with ya. Come on, let me have fun once in a while. 👨x🐱 (talk) 13:59, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:FILMSERIES. Recent articles A Quiet Place (film series) and Coming to America (film series) were deleted for the same reasons. It's not that these articles are bad to have, just that it is very redundant. There is similar value in a reader going from one film article to the other, and a reader going from an individual film article to a series article that covers two. The main difference is more of a side-by-side comparison. In contrast, with three or more individual film articles lacking a series article, a reader has to make three stops to compare details (and comparing across three is harder mentally). Whereas, with a set of individual articles with a film series article, a reader can make one less stop, going from any individual article to the series article. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:53, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a premature creation at best when two movies alone aren't enough to constitute a "film series". Three films might qualify, but as far as I know, we don't currently have any confirmation there will be a third one. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 15:21, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - updating per discussion. Hocus00 (talk) 04:19, 16 May 2021 (UTC) Keep There are plenty of dedicated film series pages on Wikipedia with only 2 films. Additionally, there are WP:RS's in the article referencing the possibility of a third film which I found informative (including from Entertainment Weekly and Gizmodo). However, perhaps this page is best to be rebranded as a franchise page per WP:FILMSERIES and include information about the 90's TV film and book. Hocus00 (talk) 02:59, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see any film series articles linked here: List of feature film series with two entries. Furthermore, development of a film does not equal an actual film. A Quiet Place (film series) was deleted even though a spin-off is in development, because there is no certainty that a tangible product will actually be created. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:06, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, there are definitely a few. For example: National_Treasure_(film_series), Finding_Nemo_(franchise), The_Secret_Life_of_Pets_(franchise), Monsters,_Inc._(franchise), and The_Incredibles_(franchise). Some of these are franchise pages though as they include other media. I would be in support of similarly rebranding this article as a franchise page and including information about the other It content as mentioned above. Specifically, merging information into this article from It (miniseries), It (novel) and Woh. Hocus00 (talk) 20:32, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can definitely see this working KaitoNkmra23 talk 13:07, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you're saying, but these are not comparable examples the closer you look. In terms of only major feature-length films, yes, there's only two in these examples as well. However, they also have theme parks, video games, merchandise, short films, and other media with the same character designs, universes, world looks, art styles and even voice actors to indicate they're franchises and series that would need their own articles. The series in this Afd don't have that, they just have two films. Also, placing the 1990 miniseries and Indian adaptation in the It article and renaming it It (franchise) is a WP:BADIDEA for reasons I've explained in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carrie (franchise) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Shining (franchise). It has only received adaptations with differing styles, looks, plots and so on, were made in different eras, and are from very different companies, which does not verifiably indicate a franchise. It would be WP:ORG to assume there was one, plus there's an Adaptations section in the book article to summarize all of the adaptations concisely. 👨x🐱 (talk) 00:13, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Updating to delete, but only because there is an Adaptations section on the novel page which seems to be a sufficient summary. Wiki definitely needs this subsection if not an article which outlines all the different movies/mini-series/etc. that has come from the book. Hocus00 (talk) 04:19, 16 May 2021 (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.