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

Rosemary's Baby (franchise)

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

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Andrzejbanas (talk) 03:34, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: as a WP:SETINDEX. Discuss renaming on TP. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:27, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not every apparent franchise or film series needs to have its own article, and all of this information is just a compiled WP:CONTENTFORK of the individual articles which can easily be accessed by the appropriate lead mentions, categories, and navbox template for this material. Because this "franchise" lacks significant coverage from reliable sources (and the WP:RECENT upcoming prequel series not really adding much else in addition to a TV movie, 1 feature film, and the 2 novels), there is really nothing this article can add that is not already adequately covered by the corresponding articles themselves. Wikipedia is WP:NOTADIRECTORY. As for the set index idea, I would suggest to WP:Blow it up and start over for that. Trailblazer101 (talk) 08:31, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep To me this nomination reeks of being a continuation of Andrzejbanas problems with similar articles such as Universal Monsters. ★Trekker (talk) 17:00, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per Wikipedia:Civility, comment on the content. Not how many you feel about an editor. @StarTrekker: Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:27, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that this is a continuation of a problematic pattern of behavior on your part.★Trekker (talk) 20:26, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm breaking rules, present it. I've made my points here and if you address them directly, we can probably work it out. Not sure what you want and it specifically asks to not makes comments like this during these discussions. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:39, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that Universal Monsters is a more established brand in its own right than a Rosemary's Baby franchise. Trailblazer101 (talk) 20:06, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep More than enough sources to establish its notability. Dimadick (talk) 12:32, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dimadick:, its not a discussion on notability, it's a discussion of having enough content about the franchise as a whole, not individual works, which is currently the issue. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:29, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On my talk page you certainly seemed to speak of it as a notability issue.★Trekker (talk) 21:19, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's a notability issue in the sense there is no significant coverage of the topic specifically. Trekker, I am encouraging you to contribute, but please address my issues, but as I've asked you at least twice ( here & here). Comment on the content, not perceived intentions from a user. Per WP:CIVIL (specifcally WP:ICA) "ill-considered accusations of impropriety" are against the rules. I've asked you three times to not do this with me. I have and can work with you and others, so please contribute to the topic instead of attacks. Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:35, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There was nothing uncivil about what I wrote whatsoever.★Trekker (talk) 13:57, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You brought up how I'm potentially contradicting myself. May I ask what you meant by this to clarify? Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:43, 23 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]
- People have already expressed their opinions on this.★Trekker (talk) 13:59, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - And it's been re-listed for more discussion. So I'm giving them the option to discuss. Trekker, this is the fourth time I'm asking, please discuss the content, not actions of other users. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:42, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]