Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of feature film series with three entries

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The result was WP:SNOW keep/withdrawn by nominator. With due respect to the concern raised by Dream Focus, WP:SNOW is an appeal to use common sense and not draw out the process where there is no reasonable possibility of any other outcome, in this case considerably strengthened by the nominator's statement of withdrawal. Consensus here is clear, sufficiently overwhelming, and definitive. BD2412 T 04:07, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of feature film series with three entries[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)

Listcruft - an indiscriminate collection of information with no indication of its notability as a standalone topic. A list of films with a certain number of entries in a certain series isn't encyclopedic, unless proven notable as a group.

This nomination would also apply to these articles with the same rationale:

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Lists. jellyfish ✉ 04:32, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Only the first article was actually tagged for deletion; I think the others probably should be too. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 05:06, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All. These are lists of film series, an obviously notable topic for a list (or set). The split into lists by number of films exists only for navigation reasons. "Listcruft", how? Indiscriminate, how?.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 07:32, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all Not fancruft or indiscriminate.★Trekker (talk) 08:53, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all Notable topic. That is what encyclopedias are for. Dimadick (talk) 10:04, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SIZE since all these lists are split off from Lists of feature film series, no suggested backup plan means we lose everything. If we had all the film series in one place, the list article would simply be too big. If anything, one could argue that the series should be split up alphabetically, but that's not being done here. (Could it be done in addition or in substitute to this? This doesn't seem to be the place to discuss that.)

In addition, WP:NLIST says, "There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as 'Lists of X of Y') or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists, although non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations are touched upon in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not § Wikipedia is not a directory. Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. Editors are still urged to demonstrate list notability via the grouping itself before creating stand-alone lists."

From a quick search engine test, I do see articles about "longest-running" film franchises that to me indicates an interest in how many films a series has. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 11:20, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all, but after this Afd is closed, please discuss on the talk page of the "more than twenty entries" list whether that list can be split. Georgia guy (talk) 12:25, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTAVOTE. You've offered no rationale about why this should be kept. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:40, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Don't see the problem. A monumental effort. Toughpigs (talk) 14:54, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:EFFORT, WP:HARMLESS. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:23, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as a non-encyclopepdic cross categorization, and also as WP:OR, since this requires WP editors to decide what goes in a "film series", rather than relying on reliable sources in order to tally. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:21, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If we delete all this without a substitute plan, we would have no list anywhere on Wikipedia listing film series. Is that what you want? If not, how should film series be listed (since all of them in one article makes it too big)? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:41, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Erik: The most obvious way would be chronologically (by first entry), no? TompaDompa (talk) 18:52, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean the overall film-series titles being split out alphabetically. Like List of feature film series: A where we see, for example, ABCs of Death (three films), Abbott and Costello Meet the Universal Monsters (four films), Antoine Doinel (five films), et cetera being listed on that page. We can do that instead of the by-numbers splitting, or in addition to it. Each film series can keep the individual films chronologically-ordered. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:56, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, I mean like List of film series from the 1920s and so on. We have Category:Film series introduced in the 1920s, after all. TompaDompa (talk) 19:13, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hah, I didn't think of (or realize you meant) that. I feel like that categorization and/or an alphabetical one are typical compared to this one up for deletion. If I had to pick, I'd prefer alphabetical more than chronological, just because a film series is more a range of years than defined by its first year. But both of these seem doable. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:24, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alphabetical would make a little more sense in terms of organization, but it doesn't avoid the OR problem. Is Star Trek 1 series (all together) or 3? (TOS, TNG, and the reboot). Who decides? What about reboots in general? What about remakes? Do the MCU movies all get lumped into one series? Does AVP go in Alien or Predator? Or both? Or neither? Do the Bond movies count as a series? They're mostly just standalone films based on the same characters rather than direct sequels. Unless you count the Daniel Craig ones. Do they go in a separate series? Who decides? 35.139.154.158 (talk) 19:21, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think box-office websites can be used as guidance for that kind of grouping. Something like Star Trek can list all the feature films. Same with Marvel Cinematic Universe. (Judging from the number of films in some cases, we don't even have to list the films, we could just link to the film-series article.) Something like AVP is likely grouped both ways, so both works. And yeah, James Bond is a film series, as reflected here. The term "film series" isn't intended to be used strictly like in the 007 example. There could be edge cases, sure, but most instances of film series will be clearly delineated and sourced. Edge cases can be hashed out through talk-page discussions. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:02, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"I think box-office websites can be used as guidance for that kind of grouping." Can they? Not for direct-to-video stuff certainly. The current list puts Stargate in the same series as the couple direct-to-video films based on the TV series. Those aren't really a series. Who decides? "There could be edge cases, sure, but most instances of film series will be clearly delineated and sourced. Edge cases can be hashed out through talk-page discussions." I think you're underestimating just how pervasive the edge cases are here, and the thing is, requiring editors to hash them out is asking them to engage in OR, which was the basis of my delete !vote. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:14, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Elaboration. I'll admit that the nomination is pretty weak, but then again, so are the keep votes above. Let's not let that stop us from addressing the fundamental problems here. As I noted immediately above, the very tallying required for this list ultimately violates WP:NOR, a core content policy, as it requires WP editors to decide what constitutes a film series (is the MCU a film series? Does AVP count for both? What about unofficial sequels?), as evidenced by a lot of arguing about this on the various talk pages. This furthermore seems to fail WP:NLIST, as classifying film series (whatever that even means) by size doesn't seem to be backed up by sources. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:40, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I nominated this pretty late at night and some neurons of mine weren't firing as intended. You pretty much hit the nail on the head as far as why I nominated. I do see the point Mushy Yank made as far as organization goes, and same thing with Erik's point about more complex and cross-categorizational list. There has to be a better way to organize a list of feature films, though, that doesn't involve the same OR or subjectivity that number of entries suffers from. jellyfish ✉ 19:54, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films says The Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) films are a series of American superhero films. Dream Focus 19:56, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So what? Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and this doesn't address the issue of what gets counted precisely. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:14, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The films are already grouped together in other Wikipedia articles, such as List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films. Dream Focus 16:55, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, so what? None of that is relevant to my objection. The topic of "list of film series by how many are grouped together in a wikipedia article" is pretty obviously not a valid list topic. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 19:02, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All of these wouldn't fit as one list article showing which series had multiple films, so it was divided in a logical manner. List of short film series list the name of the series and how many short films it has in it, without listing all the names of everything, so it all fits in one article. Dream Focus 19:56, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The size isn't the issue, and it's disingenuous of you to set up such a straw man to argue against. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:14, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Final comment. Moving forward, I think the only reasonable list you could have in this place (as alluded to for the MCU by Erik above) is simply an index to WP articles on film series/franchises, without any attempt to decide what gets included exactly. No editor OR is needed. There's no need to apply different standards to different types of series/franchises (see the godforsaken Stargate example above, just one of many like this). You simply get a list of overarching articles, which should discuss any case-specific nuances in prose, and can list related entries without really having to make any sort of decision about if it's truly part of a "series" or not. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:14, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To confirm, you are against having any list of film series on Wikipedia based on the fact some series, like Stargate, are not clear-cut? None of what you said above makes it sound like you are open to alphabetical or chronological sorting. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:29, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've seen irredeemably synthetic listcruft in my day, and this isn't it. The question of which films to count together in a series is unambiguous and source-able in the vast majority of cases. Indeed, I'd go so far as to say it's obvious up until reliable sources contest it. XOR'easter (talk) 01:37, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw, this was an AfD made in haste without taking into consideration its use as an organizational list. Oopsies. Would someone be able to close as withdrawn by nominator? jellyfish ✉ 03:41, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have the IP address who still argues for deletion. So I think the rules state it must remain open for the full 7 days, even though its obviously a snow keep. Dream Focus 04:35, 13 June 2024 (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.