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 There is No Consensus to delete the article. -- GB fan 11:14, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anaconda (film series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

This article is redundant, unnecessary, and messy, and contains no new and little contents which are merely copies of contents from another article. TurokSwe (talk) 17:46, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:17, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I never really know what to do with these articles when they show up in New Page Patrol. They're a decent repository for information, but it's frequently difficult to find sources that discus the film series as a whole, especially for these less notable series. Even the Leprechaun film series is easier to source. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:27, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as creator. Clearly notable. I created this stub to provide an overview/umbrella of the series. It can always be improved on. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:49, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as list I recommend renaming the article into List of Anaconda movies since really that is what this article is. The reason I don't think it is a suitable article topic is per WP:SIGCOV "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content When I do a search for coverage at the Series as a hole and not any individual film I don't come up with anything, I feel like original research would be required from the sources about the individual movies to extract what is about the "series" since it isn't treated directly. I think there is some good work here and that it is more useful to our readers than Category:Anaconda-franchise alone is. Bryce Carmony (talk) 19:11, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's plenty of precedent for the "(film series)" article. Even Rocky (film series), doesn't have much more to offer than this one, and a list article doesn't have to start "List of..." anyway, especially as this is more of a WP:Set index article. I'm not trying to claim WP:OTHERSTUFF, but these series overview articles do provide a unique function. I suspect the nomination to be a little WP:POINTY anyway. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:08, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that it would be better to rename it to Anaconda franchise since the series is not limited to films- there have also been two games attributed to the series. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:07, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NCF, the correct disambiguator would be "(franchise)", however, a couple of promotional tie in web games and a self published book do not satisfy the definition of a franchise. There is already a move discussion in place. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:02, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the real issue here is that it doesn't please YOU. TurokSwe (talk) 09:15, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The real issue is that you don't understand what qualifies as a franchise by our definition, and you have no respect for our guidelines or MOS and you have made a rather WP:POINTY AFD. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:52, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. As with "Lake Placid", of course the film series will have some overlap with the component parts of the franchise, but deleting it on those grounds would be like deleting Car because we have articles on every individual part of the car. bd2412 T 14:55, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

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.