Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hidden Colors (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 keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:22, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hidden Colors[edit]

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

fails WP:MOVIE, each film (Hidden Colors 1, 2, and 3) have been covered by maybe one reliable source each (that might even be a stretch), none have each been covered by a multitude of reliable sources and fails other evidence of notability too Jukitzk (talk) 18:15, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep More than 2 reliable sources. Easily meets WP:N test. Tapered (talk) 00:54, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep per topic meeting WP:NF. I gave the article slight facelift and it can use more work, but I cannot deny the topic or its filmmaker receiving coverage to meet inclusion criteria. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 02:20, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Tapered: "more than 2 reliable sources" on maybe the film series overall, not per each individual film. films are to be treated as individuals, that's why Star Wars Episode 1 has a different article from Star Wars Episode II, and most of those sources do not look reliable, but from self-created sources (IMDB,Tumblr, youtube, facebook, own site of the movie, Forums, blogspot, etc) I see maybe two reliable sources for 3 films, so i do not see how each individual film passes WP:FILM or WP:N when each film lacks significant coverage Jukitzk (talk) 18:07, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jukitzk: Your deletion nomination is not about 3 separate film articles, but is about the one article covering the entire and related series. As they were released years apart, sources may address the series parts one-by-one and need not address the entire series. Are you suggesting we split this into three articles and take them on one-by-one? Did you decide to improperly judge on current state and ignore the numerous sources available with diligent WP:BEFORE? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 21:30, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

i treated each film as an individual article, as the article was poorly written when i discovered it and i looked to find multitude of reliable sources for each film and i could not, most of the sources i found were not reliable or small mentions or from self created sites,i was treating each film as a separate article and each individual film would not pass notability,i see how the overall film series article could pass notability,but not each film solelyJukitzk (talk) 23:12, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article is about the the series, and actually the last two films have plenty of mention... but the series is why I addressed the article to share pertinent information about the series' films. And I also found plenty of sources through searches... sources that have not yet been used to improve it. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 00:19, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And in addendum,... after a "keep", and if the others feel it suitable, I am willing to split this article into three separate ones... but only if others feel three (or later perhaps more) locations serve the readers better than having the information in one place. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:09, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:48, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If we were talking about individual film articles then the notability would be shaky, but we're not and this article is ultimately about the film series as a whole. While I don't know that the individual films would really have enough coverage to pass notability guidelines, the film series as a whole does. This is an extremely common and popular alternative to having individual pages and it's done with book and film articles all the time, and there have been multiple cases where AfDs have closed with redirects to a series page (for films or movies) where there is a series page but no individual film/book pages. Basically what I'm saying is that there is a ton of precedent for series pages to have notability even if the sources talk about the individual books/films as opposed to the series as a whole. There's certainly enough coverage to merit a series page. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:20, 17 April 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.