Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kyaa Kool Hain Hum (film 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 no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:23, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kyaa Kool Hain Hum (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)

The article is a copy of the other three articles, nothing new. There is no significant coverage or important to the series as well. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. Delete or Redirect to the first movie. - The9Man ^(Talk) 14:48, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. - The9Man ^(Talk) 14:48, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. - The9Man ^(Talk) 14:48, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - This is not an article about a film, it is an article that summarises key points about three films in a franchise. Thus, it is expected that it would contain content found in the individual articles and thus, WP:NFILM may not be relevant here. Note also how List of Star Trek films and television series addresses the franchise, with summaries of content found in other articles. Not every article subject requires independent notability. For instance, would we need to establish a TV series' list of episodes as independently notable in order to branch off a list article? Of course not. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:09, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Star Trek films and television series article has numerous WP:RS, where this has hardly any which discusses it in a series way. How about the notability WP:NRV? - The9Man ^(Talk) 06:15, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep copying within Wikioedia is permitted and the films are notable, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:40, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @Atlantic306: I think the nominator is trying to say its a content fork, with the "series" of films not passing the notability criteria, imv. —usernamekiran (talk) 23:52, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • But in the reviews of the films following the first one aren't the reviews making comparisons and similarities with the earlier films so that effectively the films are being subject to coverage as a series, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:57, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  This is bound to happen because of the same film titles. It is "passing mention" to the series, not significant coverage. The most important thing here is, they are not even sequels. They are just random films containing similar star cast, and titles. The stories are differet, and even the characters portrayed by actors are different. Like Cyphoidbomb observed above; all other franchises/film-TV series have something in common. Not this film series. This film series is not mentioned anywhere out of press releases. This article is a content fork, and all the information is already covered in individual film articles. In the lead (and/or somewhere else in the article) it can be clearly stated "X was followed by Y, and Z". "Y was preceded by X, and followed by Z", and so on. There is no connection between films, no story continued, so we dont need article from that angle/requirement either (like we can explain continuity in "episodes" or "seasons" articles). —usernamekiran (talk) 20:04, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Perfectly explained by usernamekiran. - The9Man ^(Talk) 18:14, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• delete per my own comments above. —usernamekiran (talk) 00:20, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Film series typically have their own article on Wikipedia. No reason why this one should be different because it is less "important" than another series. Happy Evil Dude (talk) 15:31, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is not actually a film series. This is very well explained by usernamekiran above. - The9Man ^(Talk) 09:48, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The stories being unrelated and the characters being different does not make it "not a film series" (see the Cornetto trilogy or the Revenge trilogy for example). The three films share the same producers, same stars, same themes, same titling scheme,... It's a film series. Happy Evil Dude (talk) 10:16, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Happy Evil Dude: Hi. Your rationale is very well explained in Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. Cornetto trilogy, and other similar series have received significant coverage in reliable sources. This film series doesnt have significant coverage. Wikipedia:Existence ≠ Notability. This series fails general notability criteria. Like I said in my previous comments, there is no continuity, or any other reason to have a separate stand alone article. Everything can be explained in in the articles of individual films. —usernamekiran (talk) 20:07, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

from an interview with star Tusshar Kapoor: "It’s the third part of the Kya Kool Hai Hum trilogy, the first adult comedy franchise in India, and it’s an exciting film for me because it’s been projected as India’s first p-rn com". From an interview with 3rd film star Aftab Shivdasani: "The film is the third film in the franchise, and it’s got nothing to do with the story of the first and second film.". The films have been discussed as a trilogy by reputable, reliable outlets such as Mint, The Express Tribune and FirstPost. Coverage in India has been significant. Enough. Happy Evil Dude (talk) 20:52, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Happy Evil Dude: interviews, and press releases are not considered as significant coverage. Most of the, almost all of the coverage that I could find is about the individual movies with passing reference to the series. Again: verifiable existence is not notability. —usernamekiran (talk) 11:56, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

you're splitting hairs and you know it. I've said what I have to say. That is all. Happy Evil Dude (talk) 20:11, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - It is correct that interviews and press releases don't confer notability. However, I'm not convinced that the series needs to have secondary coverage specifically about the fact that it is a series in order for there to be a page for the series. It would seem that the series has notability if each individual episode is notable enough for an article. And I disagree with the idea that there needs to be a common story for it to be a series; it is common for a series to have different plots throughout its episodes, with actors playing different roles in each episode. As an example, take the series American Horror Story; each season has a different plot and the actors play different characters. The stories don't necessarily have anything to do with each other. However, it is still clearly a series, as you can tell by the fact that the same people are involved and the titles imply a series. Here, you have three titles implying a series (How Cool We Are > How Super Cool We Are > How Cool We Are 3) and many of the same people working on the movies. It's clearly a series, each episode is notable, I don't see why we wouldn't allow a page for this. Ikjbagl (talk) 02:54, 28 April 2020 (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.