[go: up one dir, main page]
Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rosemary's Baby (franchise)

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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 delete‎. Even without discarding the !votes that read as little more than a personal attack, the Delete arguments carry far more P&G weight than the ones calling for keeping the article. Owen× ☎ 16:46, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rosemary's Baby (franchise)

edit

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

Rosemary's Baby (franchise) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

After consideration and researching the article myself, I can not find signifigant coverage of Rosemary's Baby as a franchise with a any serious depth. Despite the large amount of citations found in the lead and the amount of content within the article. MOS:FILMSERIES says series and franchise articles would "benefit from coverage that discusses the series as a whole", but we have only been pulling from individual film/tv/work reception and are lacking in material that discusses the entirety of the work. This is predominantly material repeating information already available on the unique film/TV/novel articles.

  • Two articles are primarily about the 50th anniversary of the first film. There is little discussion of it as a series or a franchise outside other briefs about the development of the film.
    • Woman's World has little discussion other than a sequel was made to the film, a follow-up was made to the first book, and a television series was adapted. But there is no real discussion of the franchise from a critical, analytical, or business matter. The articles does not refer to it as a franchise, series, or anything.
    • Mental Floss Similarly, is a list of 13 facts about the first film, some tangentially related to the other material related to either the film or novel.
  • Articles that praise the first film, and the announcement of a sequel/prequel/remake.
    • Collider and The Guardian articles primarily praise the first film, and announce a follow up is being developed. There is little discussion about the whole thing as a series/franchise, while boasting the quality of the first film.
    • Screencrush is probably the closest in detail to anything, but barely traces it mentioning the tv sequel and a miniseries version. No critical analysis, no history of the film's production as a series or franchise with just a brief mention of the cast returning or not returning for 1970s tv-entry.
  • Sources that call it a franchise fail WP:SIGCOV, as they are trivial mentions, that fail to "address the topic directly and in detail."
    • Comicbook.com states "The movie successfully launched a titular franchise, which includes a 1976 made-for-TV sequel, an upcoming streaming exclusive prequel (2024), and a television series adaptation." this is the only amount of depth applied and like the Guardian and Collider sources, are presented as press releases for sequels to give them prestige, there is no context to it as a series.
    • Sportskeeda seems to fail WP:RSP, and can be seen here: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Sportskeeda.

The rest of the article generally rehashes the history of the production of individual items. occasionally peppering in that Rosemary's Baby has been called the greatest [horror] film ever a few times and regurgitates material that is already available in the individual articles for the books, series and novels, and places them side by side with no commentary to why we are comparing them. This goes against WP:UNDUE as we have a lack of "depth of detail, the quantity of text, prominence of placement, the juxtaposition of statements, and the use of imagery. In articles relating to a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space." In this case, we have barely anything discussing it as a franchise and run with content that is just discussing one film or another and places no information on why we have to know this info or how it relates to each or if it was even important to this group of works. The same goes for the film gross, which lists the first film's gross, then restates it as a "Total" for the series and has no information on how much the novels or TV series, in terms of cost, production or anything. This is just regurgitating information from the first article.

Beyond this, the article presents original research such as an "Official Franchise Logo". At the same time, the logo in question on [on Wikimedia] refers to it as just the films logo, not a series or franchise. From my search, I've only seen it used for the TV adaptation and the original.

On searching books, websites, and the Wikipedia Library, I have found tons of content discussing the novel and first book, but nothing outside spare mentions like the above. I propose that the article be deleted or merged with a legacy section on the first novel and first film respectively for their respective content. Andrzejbanas (talk) 03:08, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus here yet. I'm surprised to have so many participants in this AFD given one of the longest deletion nomination statements I've come across. Glad it didn't discourage editors from voicing their arguments. I'm not chiding the nominator, it's just an observation. I see a lot of "Fails WP:GNG" or "Notability issues" deletion rationales so the fuller explanation is appreciated.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:29, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, "franchise" enough. Plus one forthcoming. Hyperbolick (talk) 10:07, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hyperbolick: the deletion suggestion is not enough that it exists, the commentary is about if there is enough discussion on whether there is enough signifigant coverage of the topic as a franchise, which this topic fails per the discussion above. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:19, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: As there has been votes, but little discussion. I'm going to bring up the essay WP:THREE. This is not wikipedia standard, but I think it will help me address what I'm trying to get across, specifically reading WP:SIGCOV and understanding it, and lastly it suggests after to "Look over your list of sources and find the three that best meet WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV and whatever other guidelines people are citing.". While the editors above have commented that there are "more than enough sources" or simply ""franchise" enough", they did not seem to address the points I was trying to make. On that, I would welcome @Mushy Yank:, @Hyperbolick:, @StarTrekker:, @Dimadick:, and @Trailblazer101: (even though they seem to follow my train of thought, they should be invited to discuss) to come forward and show me how the sources or content follows the WP:SIGCOV rules, specifically ones that "address the topic directly and in detail." per WP:SIGCOV. This is in terms of discussing it as a franchise, over individual films, which is my bigger issue. All other comments and editors are welcome of course.Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:58, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 07:45, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: To follow-up, I have tagged several editors and asked them to follow-up on their original response to keep the article on September 23. Outside ★Trekker, there have been no responses that directly comment on my initial issues of WP:SIGCOV. I would also like to bring up WP:SNG which again highlights that we require "in-depth, independent, reliable sourcing". While Wikipedia:Notability (films) exists, it only goes into detail about individual films, not franchises for notability or content requirements. Wikipedia:WikiProject Media franchises seemingly has no developed standards. No source within the article discussing the film as a franchise, goes beyond a brief mention, from this, the article delves into comparisons about budget, cast, crew, and critical response which fails WP:WEIGHT, (specifically "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public.") as none of these topics are brought up within the context of a franchise in any article discussing it this way. As the only editor to regularly respond has been the one mentioned above who has not really discussed content of the article, I propose WP:SILENCE which states that when other editors have no commented after being pinged, "their silence will be construed as agreement." Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:11, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don’t think the supplemental page you refer to applies in the case of AfDs (see its scope of application, please), especially if other users are only pinged. I personally often remain silent in other AfDs, even when pinged or even when I receive a reply or a comment is addressed to me, when I think all has been said or when I dislike the tone/spirit of the question or comment or when I think the question or reply is not relevant or is disruptive. In the present case, to clarify, if you really wish me to do so, I simply would like to stand by my !vote, in which I have said all I thought useful regarding the issue you have raised. Thank you. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:39, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    While I haven't responded to that, I am curious what you would add/change to the article if it were to remain as a WP:SETINDEX @Mushy Yank:? I don't think your idea is necessarily a poor one, but without context, i'm not sure what it entails. Andrzejbanas (talk) 11:42, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Significant cuts (including whole sections maybe) should probably be discussed, as should renaming the page, but, again, that can happen on the TP of the article. I probably will not make any further comments on the present page. Thank you. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:00, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair. Thanks for clarifying as the brief "Keep" and rule discussion beforehand did not really clarify what you think would be the best step going forward. I appreciate you taking the time to follow-up @Mushy Yank:. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:00, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:07, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I don't see any critical discussion of the franchise, a brief mention here [1], but a surprising amount of scholarly reviews of the Polanski film [2]... This appear to be a synth article, with little bits for each piece of media put together to build the article. Oaktree b (talk) 01:22, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Strongly disagree with your proposition. Other editors are correct in pointing out that this has the stench of other situations you have done before (many are familiar with that history). There are a number or reliable sources that detail the franchise as a whole (see my talking points at Talk:Rosemary's Baby (franchise) #Sources for reference. With the release of Apartment 7A, there are additional sources that I will be adding there as well.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 03:00, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @DisneyMetalhead:, a few points per WP:AFDEQ, I do not really appreciate of my editing has a "stench" of anything. As for your comments, I've already addressed your content, its not a lack of sources, its a lack of content within the sources. Per WP:SIGCOV, it fails to address the "topic directly and in detail", with an emphasis on the latter, all the information is pulled about the films individually. Andrzejbanas (talk) 05:24, 29 September 2024 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rosemary%27s_Baby_(franchise)&oldid=1249593257"