Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Legend of Korra (Book 2)

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 keep. Without prejudice to any consensus to merge this from the RFC at Talk:The Legend of Korra. T. Canens (talk) 16:50, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Legend of Korra (Book 2)

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 17:56, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:GNG. Article is about a future television season that was just announced last Friday. The only source of information about it is a panel at the San Diego Comic-con. No other information other than minor setting and broadcast details have been released. — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 15:53, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Extended Explanation: Unfortunately Wikipedia does not have a policy on future television series or seasons, but information from WP:NFF can be applied in this situation. A future media event that has yet to be released is notable iff "the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines." As far as the notability of the production goes, there are only two sources available: 1) a brief mention of the second season in an interview, and 2) sources reporting on the recent San Diego Comic-con panel on the show. In the former case, the sourced interview only mentions the subject in question once, and only briefly describes the production status. For the latter sources, all information is just summaries/news reports on what the show's creators announced at the panel, which isn't much (all that was announced was the setting of the season and some initial concept art). — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 16:38, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, or failing consensus for that, merge to The Legend of Korra. This is basically a question of how to best organize the material (admittedly not yet very much, but likely to grow) that exists about this announced season. I'm of the opinion that it is convenient to have a WP:SS subarticle dedicated to this season to prevent additional bloat in the main article – compare e.g. Game of Thrones (season 3) – but putting the stuff into the main article is also a possibility. In terms of formal notability, I contend that the third-party coverage referenced in the article, which could be expanded with other media reports from a Google search (although these report mostly the same information) is sufficient for GNG because it includes several relatively thorough third-party reports about the season's development. The search template at the top is unhelpful because it searchs for the exact phrase "The Legend of Korra (Book 2)", which is not used in the media because the title derives from our naming conventions. For notability alone, this IGN article may also be relevant, although it's not of much use as a source for the article. Sandstein 16:32, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to The Legend of Korra for now. There really isn't enough information as of yet to make splitting this into its own article make sense, when everything here could easily fit into the series' main article without bloating it. If, at a later date (most likely when this season's airing is actually drawing a lot closer), there is enough material that splitting would make sense, this can be restored to a stand alone article, but at this point, merging seems to be the better choice for the moment. Rorshacma (talk) 17:22, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge per Sandstein's rationale. Jclemens (talk) 18:30, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to The Legend of Korra (Book 1) and move that to The Legend of Korra (season 1). As the first season of this series consists of Book 1 and Book 2, from what I understand, they should be together in a single article about the season. Also, I noticed that List of The Legend of Korra episodes currently redirects to The Legend of Korra (Book 1). There should be a standalone episode list (for the series). Cliff Smith 19:40, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with that merger. For all practical purposes, the four books are the seasons of the show: they are ordered and produced separately and are aired about a year apart - at least that's the case for books 1 and 2, whose airdates are April 2012 and sometime in 2013, respectively. As such, combining the two books in one season article would make little sense because they were developed and shown about a year apart; one might as well combine all four books into one article. The combination of two books into one "season" each exists only on paper, as a matter of the channel's administration or accounting (see here). - A separate episode list is currently not needed because only the episodes of book 1 have aired, so the list in that article suffices. Sandstein 06:08, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I must agree with Sanstein here. The separation into seasons is purely administrative and the separation of books is more relevant and applicable. Also the list was redirected per consensus until Book 2 begins to air and there becomes a need to have a centralized episode list. — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 13:32, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was unaware of the consensus to redirect the episode list until Book 2 airs. Makes sense to me. Cliff Smith 18:14, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I do understand the reasoning here, but whether it's "purely administrative" or not, Nickelodeon considers Book 1 and Book 2 to be season 1. So, what you're saying is that despite this, and the fact that co-creator Bryan Konietzko notes and does not challenge this (in the link Sandstein provided), we should have articles for story arcs (each "book" is an arc to Konietzko) and not seasons. The two parts of the sixth season of The Sopranos were similarly developed and shown about a year apart. I would prefer to start with a season article and then split off "Book #" articles if a single season article became too unruly—because at present, separate articles for each "book" do not seem necessary to me. Book 1 and Book 2 are subtopics of the first season of this series. Cliff Smith 18:14, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a bit offtopic for an AfD (and should be continued on Talk:The Legend of Korra), but normally we follow the sources, and they cover the books separately (in terms of reviews etc.), if only because one has already aired and one is only now in production. The difference to the The Sopranos season is that the four books of The Legend of Korra are conceived as four separate stand-alone stories, not as part of one story arc. Sandstein 19:13, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article is being subject to a delete less than 24 hours after its creation, I see enough reliable sources have been added to help support notability here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:31, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Cliff smith. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 23:23, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Light2Shadow (talk) 23:41, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Book 1 article and re-name Book 1 to Season 1. With this mode you'd be creating four different articles for only two seasons. The different books should be divided in the manner of Heroes and The Sopranos. This method is just a waste of space. Agree with Cliff Smith. SchrutedIt08 (talk) 03:24, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See my reply above. Sandstein 06:08, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge per Sandstein's rationale; I don't see a point of deletion since there will be a legitimate article about this in the near future. When that point is, is IMO a discussion for a talk page, not AfD. – sgeureka ^t•c 07:27, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Because it appears likely that this AfD will not end with deletion, I've set up a request for comment on the main article talk page about how to organize the topic into subarticles. I'll contact the editors who have expressed an opinion in this AfD and invite them to participate in that RfC. Sandstein 06:48, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - No need to deleted. Obtund^Talk 12:34, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to The Legend of Korra. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:29, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to The Legend of Korra (Book 1) and change the title of that page into The Legend of Korra (Season 1). Rallinale (talk) 05:54, 21 July 2012 (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.