Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Crown (season 1)

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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

The Crown (season 1)[edit]

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

The articles about the individual seasons of The Crown largely duplicate information also found in The Crown (TV series), List of The Crown characters, and List of The Crown episodes; the information which isn't duplicated can probably be incorporated into one of those three articles or deleted.

For example, the main elements of the season 1 article not duplicated elsewhere are the music section, the expanded 'reception' section, and the 'historical accuracy' section. The first is just an album track list, and the second and third are arguably excessively detailed; the historical accuracy section in particular is a list of inaccuracies without any broader context. A.D.Hope (talk) 19:44, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:48, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:48, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I am also nominating the following related pages as they duplicate a significant amount of their content from the three pages mentioned above:

Keep Each season has its own critical response section, historical accuracy section, episode summaries, production/development and music section, and a different list of actors. All of these cannot fit into one page. Based on your logic, every article we have covering different seasons of famous TV shows such as Friends, Game of Thrones, Breaking Bad, etc. have to be deleted as well since they overlap with the main articles. It is worth mentioning that The Crown (season 4) and The Crown (season 5) both made it to WP:Top 25. An argument can be made for expansion, rather than deletion. Keivan.f^Talk 20:10, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The things you mention can largely be incorporated into one page or removed; List of The Crown characters contains a complete list of characters, and List of The Crown episodes contains a complete list of episodes and could easily be expanded to include their summaries.

The historical accuracy sections shouldn't exist, as they're in large part lists of inaccuracies rather than commentary on them. The section on historical accuracy in The Crown (TV series) is enough. The music sections consist of track listings, and the overall production sections are largely devoted to chronological accounts of when casting decisions were made. None of this desperately needs to be included in Wikipedia.

I opened this discussion because I believe The Crown can be covered by its three main articles, it doesn't follow that the same applies to the articles about individual seasons of other TV series. A.D.Hope (talk) 20:51, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Whether the parts that cover the inaccuracies should or should not exist is an entirely different debate (after all there is coverage in secondary sources). Even excluding those and the list of actors, the sections on production and development, music, and most importantly critical response cannot be incorporated or merged into another article. Keivan.f^Talk 21:03, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The content of the production and development, music, and critical response sections could mostly be deleted or merged into 'The Crown (TV series)'. For music, for example, all we really need to say is that soundtrack albums have been released for each season; we don't need an infobox or track listing for each. A.D.Hope (talk) 21:08, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And why should they be deleted when they are all sourced? This nomination seems to be more about what you 'feel' is important or not, rather than what is actually covered in sources. Keivan.f^Talk 21:10, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Something isn't noteworthy just because it can be reliably sourced. For example, while the fact that Helena Bonham Carter was in season 3 is noteworthy, the fact she was cast by January 2018 isn't. A.D.Hope (talk) 21:17, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's what a casting section typically covers. Have you read any of the other articles about movies or TV series? What do you exactly want it to discuss? It's typically about when they were cast, how they prepared for the role, etc. The first thing that should be considered when nominating a page for deletion is the existence or lack of coverage in independent secondary sources. In this case, there is plenty of coverage on Bonham Carter's casting. This means that there is potential for expanding the section, not deleting it. Keivan.f^Talk 21:21, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, I don't believe that the existence of a reliable source makes something inherently worthwhile for inclusion in Wikipedia. As far as I'm aware casting decisions are typically not chronological accounts of when casting decisions are made, but instead give an account of how the actors came to be cast in their roles. A.D.Hope (talk) 21:31, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Keivan.f, I'm conscious that we're dominating the discussion and I don't want to WP:BLUDGEON. You've raised some good points and I think it was reasonable to respond to them, but I'm going to leave the discussion now (for a couple of days at least) so as not to crowd out other editors. A.D.Hope (talk) 21:38, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@A.D.Hope I agree. It was nice debating the matter with you. We both made our points and I think everyone else needs to chime in now. I will only keep an eye on the discussion to see where it goes because if somehow the result is to delete or merge, then there's gonna be some work that needs to be done. Keivan.f^Talk 21:46, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - each article is justified by its critical response section. They could all do with more production information being added, but that makes them a work-in-progress rather than articles that need to be deleted. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:22, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that it's necessary to have such a detailed account of the critical response to each season; the season 1 'Reception' section, for example, mentions twenty different publications by my count. It's fine to give a general critical consensus using Rotten Tomatoes and Metacricic, with one or two more specific examples to give an idea of the tone of the reviews. A.D.Hope (talk) 21:00, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That does not give the reader a taste of what the critical consensus actually is. As is evident from various articles that we have on movies (Titanic (1997 film)) and seasons of TV series (Game of Thrones (season 1)), a mere number does not convey anything to our readers and a more detailed account is needed. Keivan.f^Talk 21:07, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The aggregated scores and one or two examples do give readers a taste of the consensus. If they want more detail they can follow the links to Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic, where many more reviews can be accessed. A.D.Hope (talk) 21:13, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We cannot assume that every single reader is familiar with any of those two websites and we cannot tell them to get off the page and get additional information elsewhere. Not to mention that any external website could get shut down or closed at any point. Again, this does not change the fact that there is coverage in secondary sources. Keivan.f^Talk 21:15, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We're already selective in this regard, Keivan.f; Rotten Tomatoes lists 77 reviews for season 1, we don't quote them all. A.D.Hope (talk) 21:20, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's why we choose a number of good and bad reviews from some reputable publications. Again, I don't care about what Rotten Tomatoes is doing, which incidentally gathers reviews from some websites that would not even be considered reliable by the community here. And the whole thing could crash by tomorrow; we cannot rely on an external website to provide information to our readers. Keivan.f^Talk 21:24, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not proposing the complete removal of reviews, but reducing the number of reviews quoted and covering them in 'The Crown (TV series)' rather than in individual season articles. Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic are widely used as sources for the general critical response to a film or TV series, changing that approach is beyond the scope of this deletion request. A.D.Hope (talk) 21:34, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You really enjoy reading long, bloated and non-concise articles don't you? Kailash29792 (talk) 06:32, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:36, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong and speedy keep per Keivan.f - -- Shivertimbers433 (talk) 23:27, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sections covering accuracy alone push these all past GNG easily and are completely justified. It's a popular series with international appeal and an absurd amount of sources beyond here, and each list-of is justified and proper here. Nate • (chatter) 00:06, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Jimmie Wiki (talk) 04:51, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Deleting season articles is the opposite of progress. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:31, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In addition to what everyone above me said, what good would merging 6 season articles into one? That would mean that if a reader would want to read information about season 3, they'll need to read the entire articles of the main article, list of characters and list of episodes, to find the information they need. How is that even remotely a good idea? We split information into season articles for a reason, as they make reading more logical. Gonnym (talk) 09:06, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep as per Keivan.f and Kailash29792. I think what's also important to remember is that when people search up a season for a show on Wikipedia, they'd want to be able to differentiate the seasons easily rather than scroll through a large page of everything as highlighted by Gonnym. Maxwell King¹²³³²¹ 11:37, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Improvements if kept[edit]

Given the consensus emerging above, it might be useful to discuss what improvements will be made to the articles if they're kept. My intent when opening this discussion was to move the best parts of the articles – I know several editors have put a lot of effort into them – and remove the remainder. If the eventual consensus is to keep all the articles, however, we should also commit to raising their general standard. Some things which come to mind immediately are:

Re-writing the 'Casting' sections so that they focus on why particular actors were cast, not when.
Re-writing the 'Historical accuracy' sections to focus on the response to a season's accuracy and one or two examples, rather than the current list-like format.
Generally fleshing out the articles following WP:MOSTV, such as adding more detailed production information.

If you have any more ideas please feel free to add them below. A.D.Hope (talk) 12:15, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that everyone is in favor of compartmentalization (so am I). In that scenario, what we should aim for is improving each article given that sources are available. We should mainly focus on production and development and condensing the historical accuracy sections. A list of notable awards for each season can also be introduced. Keivan.f^Talk 13:48, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Honestly, it is too absurd this deletion query for articles related to the series of The Crown, each article referring to each season is quite necessary, being a series that has 6 seasons and one of the most important of Netflix and for the British crown. Some cosmetic improvements can be made as mentioned by the user above. But I repeat, it is unnecessary to have created this deletion query, I was quite impressed being one of the users who translated each article for Wikipedia in Spanish. Milkout (talk) 19:10, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep particularly per adamstom97 that each season has dedicated sigcov, and also that AfD is not cleanup. ResonantDis_tortion 00:08, 20 December 2023 (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.