Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alvin and the Chipmunks (film series)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 redirect to Alvin and the Chipmunks. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:17, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alvin and the Chipmunks (film series)[edit]

Alvin and the Chipmunks (film series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The series does not need it's own article. The franchise itself already has its own page, from which this entire article was just copied and pasted, and with only 2 movies (none of which were particularly esteemed) and one more planned, a page for the series is completely unnecessary. Other than a comparison of cast members, there is no new information in this article that is not just taken from the individual page. It is is, quite literally, a copy and paste of a section of the main Alvin and the Chipmunks article. Only for movies where the series itself is incredibly significant (Pirates of the Caribbean comes to mind) is a page on the film series needed. With a series like Pirates, or Toy Story, or Shrek, there's been plenty of coverage, analysis and discussion of the series as a whole, not just the individual movies. Yaksar (let's chat) 02:59, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Only for movies where the series itself is incredibly significant (Pirates of the Caribbean comes to mind) is a page on the film series needed" - is this only your opinion or a statement on the standards of wikipedia, which may (and usually does) have a page for any notable film series? Keep Bienfuxia (talk) 05:42, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do believe there's something stated to that effect, although I'm having trouble finding it at the moment. Regardless, the article still suffers from problems regarding REDUNDANT and Content Forking.--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:22, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps. But I can't see any good reason not to let it be. Bienfuxia (talk) 05:41, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Although it would make Wikipedia a cooler place, we unfortunately can't base our policies off the philosophies of Beatles songs. :)--Yaksar (let's chat) 05:45, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

if it were merged with the main article and cleaned up a little bit I think it is salvagable, unlike the movie itself. I can't believe I am not trying to delete something...I feel so wrong. Imasomething (talk) 18:35, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I see your point. I really didn't notice the similarities until you pointed them out. I was going cross eyed from reading so much about Alvin and the Chipmunks. I think the better argument is for deleting it is the one you presented to me, that it looks like a cut and paste job from another article. I agree with the delete. Imasomething (talk) 03:58, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure it even needs to be merged. It was copied and pasted right from there.--Yaksar (let's chat) 05:25, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are animated films as well mentioned there, so its more than just two films. The article's infobox reads: "Budget $100 million" and "Gross revenue $904,476,638". Someone thought these films fairly significant to spend that much money on them, and they are proven significant by how much they made. Dream Focus 21:41, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since the nominator mentioned "none of which were particularly esteemed", I'm just wondering if you think that is a valid reason to delete something? They made a ton of money, so someone liked them. My sister's young daughters watched those films many times and enjoyed them. WP:Idon'tlikeit is not a reason to delete something. Don't be a hater. Dream Focus 21:55, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That was just one fact I noted, not the main argument for deletion. I also want to once again point out that this article is literally just copied and pasted from the main article on Alvin and the Chipmunks, adding almost nothing else.--Yaksar (let's chat) 22:19, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • More information can be added. I tagged it for rescue. Dream Focus 22:37, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • More info could be added about the individual films, but there's not reason to; they already have their own entire articles. As you yourself pointed out in an edit summary, the sources are all about the individual movies; none about the general "series". Contrast that with something like Shrek or Toy Story, where there's plenty of notable coverage, analysis, and documentation of the series as a whole.--Yaksar (let's chat) 22:43, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – If the argument for deleting this article is that the content can be adequately covered on the franchise page, the obvious step is to nominate the articles for a merge. If the article is deleted all the information about the films will be lost. Betty Logan (talk) 07:14, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is not just covered on the franchise page, it is literally just copied and pasted from it.--Yaksar (let's chat) 12:40, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete – Copyvio. Sorry, I didn't realise it was a wholesale cut and paste job in its entirety. In that case there isn't really a debate here, it has to go. The copy vio stuff has to be removed and there just won't be an article left after it is. Betty Logan (talk) 15:41, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No copyright violation. Wikipedia rules have been followed. See below. Dream Focus 19:36, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dream Focus is correct, see below. Flatscan (talk) 05:30, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I think it's also worth mentioning that the page seems to violate Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. This is something that I normally would have PRODed I think, but I felt bad for the user who created it (who had gone on a spree of unencylopedic articles, all of which are not deleted I believe.)--Yaksar (let's chat) 12:54, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did a phantom edit so the history summary will show where the information was copied from. [1] There is no rule against starting an article with content from another, and leaving it there to expand. Anyone wishing to see the history of the article to see who came up with what, will see my edit summary telling them where to look. Dream Focus 19:36, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dream Focus has the right idea here – the missing attribution can be provided, rather than deleting the article, per WP:Copying within Wikipedia#Repairing insufficient attribution. If the article is kept here, I'll add the necessary {{Copied}}s. Flatscan (talk) 05:30, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense. The copyright issue was really just a side-note I brought up later though (I'm not familiar enough with all that to be comfortable concretely referencing it.) The other points about it being an unnecessary copy and paste job still stand. But thanks for clearing that all up.--Yaksar (let's chat) 05:38, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is there the potential for growth for this article? Is there information which could expand it? Dream Focus 19:36, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There possibly is, but at the moment it's just duplicated everything from the main article. As a copy vio it has to go. If the editor or other editors decide that the series would be better off with its own article rather than part of the franchise article they should propose a split through the proper methods so the authorship of the material can be properly accounted for. Betty Logan (talk) 19:44, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The cast table was written by User:ChipmunkRaccoon (diff, history), with later edits being an infobox merged from the individual film articles, a copied paragraph, one sentence, and minor changes. WP:Merge and delete (ChipmunkRaccoon's attribution in an edit summary) is possible here. Flatscan (talk) 05:30, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Two movies don't make a series to me. Any material in this article can go in the franchise article. --DThomsen8 (talk) 23:13, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now with support for recreation when the third film comes out. If it is recreated, it should provide overviews of the cast and crew, the box office performance, and the critical reception. I would prefer to see the franchise article's "The Chipmunks' future" film-related section being rewritten and presented in the film series article, with the franchise article having a summary section about it. Of course, right now, a reader can see one film article or the other to find out details. Three is a reasonable threshold for comparing details across the series. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:11, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as entirely redundant to Alvin and the Chipmunks and to the articles on the individual movies. Reyk YO! 00:15, 12 February 2011 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alvin_and_the_Chipmunks_(film_series)&oldid=1137557445"