Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Friday the 13th media

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. postdlf (talk) 00:25, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Friday the 13th media[edit]

[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)

Page is overall redundant to the Friday the 13th (franchise) page, that contains all notable entries. The franchise page already lists the films, the documentaries, the comics, and the other notable media. This page adds in fan made "shorts" that were eventually stuck on recent blu ray releases of the F13 films. They are not notable by themselves and are the equivalent of "special features" on the F13 blu ray features. Most of the pages on this page either do not have pages themselves, or they redirect to the franchise page that already lists them. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 17:14, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 17:24, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 17:24, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 17:25, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 17:25, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 17:25, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The franchise list does not cover a lot of the inforation on this page, such as ISBNs for the books and album releases. With lists you can simply read and navigate around each entry without it being overshadowed by prose and backround information. Lists like these exist for tons of franhises that also have articles because it's helpful. It's not a "replacement" like op accused it of being on the talkpage, it's a complementary work that exists to highlight all sides of the series without it being hard to count and keep track of how many releases there has been. The fact that Bignole does not personally like the short films because they're "extra features" doesn't change the fact that they exist and were officialy released and can be mentioned. Also, being "notable/having it's own article" has nothing to do with if something should be mentioned in a listing of media such as this. That's a nonsensical argument that seems to imply that this list is somehow trying to force these subjects into having pages or something, which is far form the truth, no one would try to make that case against a list of episodes of a tv series "well these episodes don't have articles so there is no point in listing them", that's not how it works.★Trekker (talk) 17:26, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - We're not here to sell books, so having their ISBN numbers isn't a reason to create a separate page. That said, all the books are sourced by their ISBN numbers, so the franchise page technically does list them at the bottom. As for the red links not meaning anything, I point to WP:LISTPURP: "However, as Wikipedia is optimized for readers over editors, any lists which exist primarily for development or maintenance purposes (such as a list that consists entirely of red links and does not serve an informational purpose; especially a list of missing topics) should be in either the project or user space, not the main space." With exception to the feature films and a couple of comics, the rest of this page is either red links or redirected pages that would have been red links. As for your analogy about the TV series. No, we wouldn't argue based on notability of the TV series episode list, we would argue based on size. As WP:MOSTV has a guide on when to split for an LoE page. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 17:35, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Once again a nonsensical argument, this page a zero to do with selling books and this page is also not for the sake of editors, no idea how anyone could make those assumptions. Silly. And if the redlinks are your issue you can simply unlink them. You once again dissmis these subjects because you don't find them to be "real" or official enough, but that's your personal opinion, you can't claim "all this information already exists" and then complain when the page has information which is not included on the main page. Your comment about TV series episodes doesn't help your case remotly, that reasoning about how many or how big an episode list has to be to be split has zero to do with this. You originaly made a very poor argument that these things should not be listed because they're "not notable", which makes zero sense. If your point was about size that's another thing entirely, but you didn't make a comment about that, you argued about notability.★Trekker (talk) 17:42, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - My point wasn't about size, I was merely pointing out that your analogy with TV episodes doesn't work because we have a specific guide in place that says when an LoE page is created. I stand by my point that this page is redundant to the franchise page (there are tables for each of these and they are properly sectioned off, so they are actually easier to navigate than this page), and that the majority of this page is filled with non-notable media subjections. Those fan shorts are given undue weight as if they are some officially created media. They are not. They were fan shorts that were eventually included to buff up the special features of the films. That's it. What's interesting is you say "Tons of franchises have lists like these for their media.". Weirdly, I cannot find that to be true. I cannot find this for Terminator, Star Wars, Star Trek, Aliens, DC films, James Bond, Godzilla, Scream, Halloween, Texas Chainsaw, or Child's Play. There was one for Marvel Cinematic Universe!.....redirected to the MCU franchise page. Nightmare on Elm and Saw seemed to have one. The Nightmare one was just the films. Either way, that's not a "Ton", and that was me doing a 2 minute search of all the major franchises I could think of real quick. So, your argument that it's so prevalent isn't holding water. Those others page stand to be questioned as to whether they should exist as well. Especially when you think that a navigation template also serves most of the same purpose. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 18:31, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - And my point was that your argument that "these things aren't individually notable so we shouldn't list them" is bad, and you brought up size for no reason. Also, what "undue weight" is simply listing them of exactly? And for the 100 time, those are not fan films. Your argument that "well these fracnhises don't have them" is also bull, what about the franchises that do have them then by your logic? Like List of Scooby-Doo media, List of Saw media, List of Call of Duty media and List of Naruto media to name a few? Your arguments seems to be 100% based on IDONTLIKEIT.★Trekker (talk) 18:38, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - Also, I feel it's worth noting that I am the one who made the MCU redirect, because I'm planing on turning it into a list in the future. And while Star Wars, Star Trek, Alien and Terminator don't have lists for all their media they do have lists of their media split up in different types, like List of Star Wars films and television series, List of Star Trek films and television series, List of Alien films and television series and List of Terminator video games for example.★Trekker (talk) 19:04, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say no franchise has them, I was merely pointing out your claim that "tons have them" was grossly inaccurate. As for the shorts not being notable, there is important. You've placed them on the page as if they are official media of Friday the 13th. They weren't. They were created by a fan, Andrew Ceperley. Paramount and New Line didn't produce those films. He made them because he is a fan and wanted to extend the universe. Why was it include on the Blu-ray? Because Andrew Ceperley worked on "Never Sleeps Again", the Nightmare on Elm Street documentary and has worked in the industry in various roles.

Those films, even if they were actually made by Paramount (which they weren't) are nothing more than special features on a Blu-ray. You lead this page with "media releases from the franchise", except these were never released. They were tacked onto a special feature Blu-ray. You're presenting them here like they were some officially sanctioned short film, when they weren't. You're misrepresenting what they are, which is why it's undue weight being placed on them. I don't see "Fresh Cuts: New Tales from Friday the 13th", "The Man Behind the Legacy: Sean S. Cunningham", "The Friday the 13th Chronicles", or any of the others on those 8 films that had Blu-ray releases for Paramount. Because they are special features. You're treating these shorts like they are official media. They are not. That's not an opinion, that's fact. You have nothing to show to prove that they are official, because they aren't. They were fan shorts that they put on a Blu-ray. Either way, my entire point is that, other than these unofficial short films, everything else is already on tables on the franchise page (which is just as easy to navigate). That makes this page redundant and unnecessary. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 18:22, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How can you claim that there aren't a lot of media lists on Wikipedia for franchises? There are over 50 included on the Category:Media by franchise page linked below. Have you even checked? Also you don't get to decide when a short film is a "fan film" or "not official" when it's released on an official media release like a DVD or BluRay. How does it matter if they're not produced by Paramount? Paramount didn't produce all the Friday films. Also, no, not everything is on a table on the franhcise page last I checked unless you edited that in now to try to strenghten your poor arguments.★Trekker (talk) 18:33, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, neither Paramount nor Warner Bros produced it...that's makes it unofficial. There's a reason that it doesn't use the name "Friday the 13th", or specifically the characters from the F13 franchise. Why the killer is "killer" and not "Jason Voorhees" and why you don't see his face clearly and he isn't wearing the hockey mask. Because it's a fan film and they didn't want to get sued. The fact that Paramount put them on the Blu-ray release doesn't make them officially media of F13. That's why they are a special feature on each of the blu rays, and not a compiled, single film. As for the media category, that's 59 pages (most of which are not film franchise) out of 500 franchise pages we have. That's NOT the "ton" you were claiming to have in existence to support this page. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 15:28, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is a pretty major franchise and has a lot of works related to it. Having the list in this fashion appears to assist in readability to the user and meets the criteria at WP:SAL. And judging by Category:Media by franchise this does not appear to be a one off, so it makes sense to me. - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 18:00, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a valid split from a notable article with extra valid information, not everything on a list has to have a wikipedia article as it is better to be accurate than just serving as an index page Atlantic306 (talk) 19:46, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:45, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Atlantic306: - the issue isn't just everything on the list not having an article, the issue is that half the list is stuff that is not actual released media for the franchise. It's fan shorts that were merely included as a special feature. It's misleading to readers, as it's presented as some official media of the franchise when it isn't. Everything else is easily navigated to and in tables on the franchise page. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 15:17, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bignole: Content within an article is not reason to bring something to AfD, that is something to discuss on the articles talk page. It has no baring on keeping or deleting. Plus I would say we all know your feelings, no reason to keep WP:BLUDGEONing this page. - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 15:31, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Content of an article can play a role when the article contains information that should not be there as a way of fluffing up its existence. As for my responses, I'm fully allowed to provide counter points to arguments on the page. That's the point of a "discussion". Thanks. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 15:39, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You don't seem to understand the point of lists. And stop calling officialy released content "fan films" because you don't like it. You're sounding like a broken record and doing nothing but wasting everyones time for no reason except that IDONTLIKEIT.★Trekker (talk) 17:44, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the six short films are not "half the list", don't lie or try to misslead people because they don't agree with you.★Trekker (talk) 17:46, 27 March 2019 (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.