- 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 merge to Alpha and Omega (film)#Sequels. → Call me Hahc21 21:16, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Alpha and Omega 3: The Great Wolf Games (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)
Non-notable film, the film has no coverage other than on commercial websites, does not meet WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 17:10, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: There are plenty of sources. You just have to be willing to take the time to find them. There are more sources than what you listed above. I don't see what the big deal is about this page when the second movie's page only has a few sources. Plus the third movie doesn't need a whole lot of sources because you can get a bunch of information off the official website which is made by the creators of the movie, which is listed as a reference. Also, Lionsgate Publicity IS a reliable source. It seems like some people skipped over that source. I don't think the page should be deleted. AustinPuppyUSA (talk) 02:02, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is that we need sources to show how it is notable. From what I saw of the page's existing sources, most of them were unusable. The thing to remember is that what we need is coverage in places such as news outlets, reviews from reliable sources such as say, Twitch Film (or critic reviewers on Rotten Tomatoes), and the like. Existing does not mean notability. WP:PRIMARY and merchant sources cannot show notability, nor can you use places such as IMDb to show notability either. Nobody is really questioning the factual-ness of the article, but its notability. As far as saying that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, I don't see where the second film currently meets notability guidelines either. I'll try to find sources, but offhand it looks like it should also redirect to the main article as well. The thing about pointing out other stuff is that in many cases the pages don't pass notability guidelines and haven't gotten nominated for deletion yet... and pointing them out frequently speeds up their demise. Other times you can have films that do gain coverage, but later sequels do not gain any true media attention. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:30, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
-
- Merge/redirect per above. This is the third time that this has come to AfD. (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alpha and Omega 3) Each time the decision was to redirect and the problem is that nothing has been added to show that any of the problems with notability have been met. I found one sole review by Commonsensemedia, but that's really it. Nobody else has given this film any true coverage to show that it merits an article of its own and the sources on the article that were usable aren't really enough to show a depth of coverage. There are things that show that the film exists, but existing is not notability. (WP:ITEXISTS) No amount of primary sources can show notability. If the film were to ever gain more coverage then we can always get it un-redirected, but not before then. Given that this has been re-created several times and there has been several attempts to turn it back into an article despite the previous versions, I'd say that the redirect should probably be protected in some form or fashion, possibly by deleting the article history to discourage someone just un-redirecting this. I normally don't endorse that, but the article's history shows that after it's redirected people just un-redirect it repeatedly. Perhaps admin only editing until someone can prove that it meets notability guidelines? Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:45, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The second film seems to barely scrape by notability guidelines and the only thing that saves it overall is that the DVD Talk review is rather in-depth. It's still somewhat in danger of being something AfD-able, though. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:05, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- 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.