Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of franchises that have won Academy, Emmy, Grammy, and Tony Awards (2nd nomination)

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 merge to List of EGOT winners. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:30, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of franchises that have won Academy, Emmy, Grammy, and Tony Awards (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)

This article has previously been through AfD and was deleted. It's still complete original research about a concept contrived by editors as an analog of List of EGOT winners. Also, there's no definition of what counts as a "franchise"—currently one of the sections is for anything based on the Arthurian legend. Trivialist (talk) 12:18, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:24, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Awards, Entertainment, Film, Music, Popular culture, Television, and Theatre. Trivialist (talk) 21:43, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral It was deleted back in December 2017. But whether articles are kept or deleted is determined by whatever random group of people show up to comment so that doesn't really mean anything. There are articles for notable franchises which would have this information in it. I don't see any reason why anyone want to see the information presented like this. If you had a chart for a proper comparison list, maybe someone might be interested in it, but this seems totally pointless. Even if you bothered to look for the name of each franchise, with the word "franchise" in the search term, and the name of any of the awards, and found coverage of the awards the franchise has won, this list would still be pointless. Dream Focus 19:01, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NLIST. EGOT applies only to individuals, not franchises. List of EGOT winners specifically states "EGOT ... is the designation given to people who have won all four of those awards." Nowhere in the wild is there a list (other than copies of this one) of EGOT franchises. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:21, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per previous deletion.2601:241:300:B610:4406:E8B8:9DCC:451B (talk) 01:42, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This article is interesting and original. It is notable that a "work" can win all 4 major awards the same way that it is notable and interesting that an individual can. The definition of "franchise" could perhaps be improved (currently it appears to be anything with the same basis or source), but I still find this to be an interesting and original topic which is well researched and documented on this page. I don't think it should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.11.95.45 (talk) 19:27, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exactly, it's original. Which violates WP:SYNTH. Trivialist (talk) 22:51, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to List of EGOT winners. In a brief format. The article can have a paragraph about franchises, this is supported by this ref. Not really seeing a point in having a separate list for them.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:01, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wonder if this isn't a case of WP:Citogenesis. It's worth noting that on June 11 it only included four franchises (though it said five: There have been five franchises to get this honor: The Lion King, The Sound of Music, Aladdin, and The Wizard of Oz.) It was then updated on June 14 (though the article is originally from 2017) and now says There have been eight franchises to get this honor: Porgy and Bess, Beauty and the Beast, The Lion King, The Legend of King Arthur, Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street, The Wizard of Oz, Aladdin, and The Sound of Music. It's rather peculiar that it would list the "franchises" in the same order this article does, that it would list The Legend of King Arthur as a franchise at all, that it would use the exact phrasing The Legend of King Arthur (with italics and identical capitalization, rather than calling it e.g. "Arthurian legend"), and that it would use the full title Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street as this article does (rather than just Sweeney Todd) if it is not citogenesis. It's also worth noting that on Wikipedia, Beauty and the Beast was added on May 4, Porgy and Bess was added on June 1, and The Legend of King Arthur was added on June 6. Looking into it some more, I notice that Ajd brought up citogenesis concerns back in 2017, see Talk:List of EGOT winners/Archive 2#Franchises Section. TompaDompa (talk) 09:38, 26 July 2022 (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.