Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big Mommas (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   redirect to Big Momma. Calls to expand this article beyond a mash of the film articles have not been met.  Jujutacular  talk 12:34, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Big Mommas (film series)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This new article is just a synthesis of the three articles about the individual films. There are other "(film series)" articles that are very good and add information about the subject, but this is not one of those. It is a pointless stub. Spidey 104  17:52, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Basically the same article under a different name (Big Momma's House films) was already speedily deleted. The creator of both articles is the same. Perhaps a warning is in order for him? This editor only seems to create pointless articles that are eventually deleted. Spidey  104  18:01, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete As I remember, this article is more extensive than Big Momma's House films (and Big Momma's House) but it still contains nothing that isn't already adequately, and encyclopaedically, covered in the film articles. I agree with Spidey, the editor does need a warning, not only for creating articles and templates such as this but for most of his edits. --AussieLegend (talk) 18:45, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 00:37, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: Why would it not be possible to have a film series article here? It seems to me that the article is underdeveloped. Like other film series articles, we can include aggregate box office figures and critics' scores. In addition, I'm sure that it's possible to examine the third film's reviews to see how critics compared it to previous films. We may even be able to identify a critic that has reviewed all three films and put together all of his or her reviews. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 14:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Keep A notable film series can have its own article. More information can be added.  No article is created 100% complete straight away.   D r e a m Focus  04:23, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * What other information could be added to this article that doesn't simply duplicate content already covered in the individual film articles? --AussieLegend (talk) 08:50, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - Information about the individual films in a series that is already covered adequately in the individual articles, with so real coverage given to the series as a whole. Yaksar (let's chat) 06:21, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep: Notable enough to be retained. The article includes gists of plots from all the three movies. If this article has to go, then so should other articles on film series. I find no reason for it to be deleted. Perhaps it should be renamed as Big Momma's House (film series) and of course requires some expansion. &mdash; Abhishek Talk to me 06:53, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The films may be notable, but what makes this unreferenced article that simply duplicates the content from the three movie articles notable? --AussieLegend (talk) 08:48, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - as a pointless duplication of the individual articles. Mtking (talk) 10:20, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: If this article is a pointless duplication of the individual articles, then so are the articles on other film series and if this article has to go, so should the others. &mdash; Abhishek Talk to me 10:28, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If you think that then nominate them separately as they're not relevant to this AfD. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:56, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 07:59, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It's important to note that, while there are sources for the individual movies, there don't seem to be sources here covering the series as a whole. This article can not exist if it is simply a mish mash of info in other articles; it needs its own sources to prove its notability, and without this all of the keep votes asserting it's notability are invalid. But even if sources were found for this, this article would still simply be a synthesis of the smaller articles.--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:02, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Relisting comment: I was about to close this, but then saw Yaksar's comment at the end. Others probably have not yet had time to discuss this issue, so I am relisting it. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 08:01, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand. It's not much, but there is one book in print, Emily Fox-Kales, Body Shots: Hollywood and the Culture of Eating Disorders (2011), p. 154, that references the "Big Momma's House series" as "representations of the big black woman that have appeared in mass marketed comedies" which at the same time devalue the women by casting "male actors wearing Latex fat suits". Also, there is this rather scathing review, Stuart Heritage, Big Momma's House 3: once, twice, three times a fake lady, at guardian.co.uk (Nov 10, 2010). Although it is a puff piece and reads like a blog, it comes from a contributor who was paid to write it (for what that's worth), and says that "Believe it or not, the Big Momma's House series rigidly follows the classic Hollywood trilogy structure". In particular, if there are any discrepancies between the films, or cross-film character arcs, this is the place for them. bd2412  T 21:35, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment/Temporary Keep: I would be fine with a Keep for right now. However, the editors that said it should and could be expanded need to be the ones who do the expansion. If this article does not get expanded to the point where it is a proper article within a reasonable amount of time I will renominate it for deletion, because if the people who say it can be expanded are unable to expand it then no one else can (or will). Spidey  104  13:04, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * AfDs often generate cleanups and expansion of articles during the AfD with little work afterwards. While it wasn't my intention when nominating it, there was a huge change to List of teen films between when I nominated it and when the AfD closed. By compariosn, this article has seen only this and not a single reference has been added. The likelihood, if we use "List of teen films" as an example is that we'll be back here again. --AussieLegend (talk) 13:20, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * There is a catch 22 involved here. I am not going to put much work into an article that stands to be deleted. If it is kept, I'll work on it. bd2412  T 18:56, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I take that back, I've added the above references to the article, along with a box office table (which demonstrates the decline in popularity as the series ages), and done some general clean-up. If it is kept, I'll do more. Cheers! bd2412  T 19:46, 1 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete The topic of the series is justified and notable, but there's no content in this article that's not just a paste from the individual film articles. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:46, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I have added some. Cheers! bd2412  T 04:40, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep: Even if the article is hash, it should still be kept as a list or disam to link to the films in the series Purpleback pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  07:50, 7 April 2011 (UTC) Redirect to Big Momma...I said we needed a disambiguation page, and it looks like we've already got one  Purpleback  pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  23:29, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - per purplebackpack89.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:40, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Purplebackpack is now a redirect, since his or her rationale did not take into account the already existing disambig page, although he or she has now accounted for it. Do you still agree?--Yaksar (let's chat) 23:56, 10 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment Despite additional content added since then, Yaksar's comments of March 29 are still valid. The article is still just a mash of content from the three film articles. Only the last part of the article is referenced, the three references added referring to box office figures that should be in the individual film articles and two comments from reviewers, again which should be in the individual articles. The only original content is a table comparing the box office figures and that really doesn't justify a separate article. I'd like to know Purplebackpack89's rationale behind the claim that the article should be kept as a list or a disambiguation page. None was supplied so it's unconvincing. Perhaps BabbaQ can explain, because I can't. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:21, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I though my rationale for keeping it was pretty clear...you need an article on the franchise as a parent article to the article on each film. This is the way it is dealt with in most other franchises.  How would you solve the problem of linking from one film to the others?  I see the problem with this page is not the notability of the subject, but the quality of content, namely that it was copied from elsewhere.  I'm not defending the current content there.  When I said "make it a list or disambiguation page", I meant completely refactoring what's there (the current page is obviously not a list or dab), similar to List of Conan O'Brien sketches.  Something on the lines of, "Big Momma's are a series of three films written by Don Rhymer and starring Martin Laurence.  These films are...", and then bullet them off with dates of production and links to each article.  Would that not be acceptable?  Purpleback  pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  22:43, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The issue here though, is much different. Lots of different people could search "List of Conan O'Brien Sketches" looking for one of those specific articles. No one is going to search for "Big Mommas (film series)" looking for one of the specific movies. On a total side note, I don't think the series is referred to anywhere as the Big Mommas series (indeed its weird to label it by the least memorable third film) and some sources refer to the "Big Momma's House series", so a move is probably in order.--Yaksar (let's chat) 22:49, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed, readers are more likely to search for Big Momma, which is already a disambiguation page for the series. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:09, 10 April 2011 (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.