Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Santa Clause (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 keep. J04n(talk page) 14:36, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Santa Clause (series)[edit]

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

Unreferenced content fork of the three individual movies. The page makes zero statements about the series, only about individual films. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:44, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It is commonplace to have film series articles that aggregate content across multiple films. For example, Box Office Mojo aggregates box office figures. In addition, it seems likely that film reviews could compare a recent film to its predecessor(s). Erik (talk | contribs) 04:09, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. czar · · 04:24, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:COMMONSENSE - this is useful. Barney the barney barney (talk) 09:59, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as total overlap. WP:ITSUSEFUL is not an argument. I see nothing "common sense" about an unreferenced fork that merely regurgitates what's already in the three films' articles. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:43, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a notable topic. In addition to each individual film being indisputably notable, the sequence is also indisputable. Coverage of the succeeding films often refer back to the previous film or films. For example, Box Office Mojo analyzes the third film's box office performance compared to the second's here. TenPoundHammer is right to say that such information can be found on individual films' articles, but I do not think it is detrimental for Wikipedia to have an article that aggregates the content under a verifiable scope. In addition, due to the nature of the scope, coverage in the film series article may be more comparative in running text than the individual films' articles. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:35, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So are you going to leave it an unsourced trainwreck, or are you gonna fix it? It won't fix itself, contrary to the common belief around these parts. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 14:31, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We do not delete an article about a verifiable topic because it is a mess, but I will go ahead and add references for some of the figures. If you can help, that would be appreciated too. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:41, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I hope the various passages I've added help illustrate how films can be compared across a series. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:34, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unless there are multiple sources with in depth coverage of the series, that would be WP:OR, which is banned. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:54, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What part of WP:OR applies here? It is self-evident that we have a film series, by both the nature of their numbering and by the acknowledgement of this grouping by independent sources. That is a key reason why the existing references compare and contrast the films. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:06, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's very common for there to be articles for both individual films and the overall series they are in. Some more information could be added, but I don't see any reason why this shouldn't exist (especially since it's not unreferenced anymore). Alphius (talk) 15:31, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:57, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article is about film series, so naturally, the films represent an essence of the article, so it is normal that they are mostly described. Additionally, it would be a good thing to add some information of series in general (from official website, critics, news etc.). Also, keep per WP:COMMON, not applicable is WP:ITSUSEFUL, as these films are notable and we have, for example Harry Potter (film series). Suggestion: keep only with clear advice to expand the article with appropriate contents of series itself. Alex^{discussion ★} 16:13, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per User:Barney the barney barney - Nom has lost ALL WP:SENSE nominating this!! -

→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 21:41, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, good deal of secondary source coverage of numerous varieties. — Cirt (talk) 10:24, 11 May 2013 (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.