Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/King Kong (franchise)


 * 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. not precluding a move somewhere Eddie891 Talk Work 22:08, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

King Kong (franchise)

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Not a franchise. Article is pure original research. King Kong as a concept is public domain and as this article clearly itself states several companies own incarnations of the character. ★Trekker (talk) 18:17, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Television. ★Trekker (talk) 18:17, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Stron keep – This is definitely a franchise, and definitely notable for its own article. But even if you argue this isn't a franchise, a more appropriate solution would be to move the page to Adaptations of King Kong or King Kong in film and television. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:05, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * A franchise must have owners and rights cohesion, otherwise every single derivative work of Dracula, Sherlock Holmes or Frankenstein could be lumped together in a "franchise" article like this one, instead there are several franchises/series that are based on these concepts, for example Sherlock Holmes (1939 film series), Sherlock Holmes (1931 film series), Sherlock Holmes (Stoll film series) and Sherlock Holmes (Éclair film series) are separate series with separate rights when they were produced, same with Dracula (Hammer film series) and Dracula (Universal film series).★Trekker (talk) 13:05, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Which is why I said, . See Portrayal of James Bond in film as an example. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:28, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Would the nominator please explain why renaming the article wouldn't fix the issue? Jclemens (talk) 03:22, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
 * It seems somewhat pointless to me, there is already a King Kong article where the characters appearences in film and TV are covered.★Trekker (talk) 13:05, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
 * That is a character article, not an article about the adaptations themselves. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:28, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename to avoid franchise terminology. Trim out any OR as needed. Jclemens (talk) 02:19, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep, possibly rename, per InfiniteNexus. BD2412  T 12:32, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename per InfiniteNexus. IMO, King Kong in film and television would be the more appropriate title for renaming, as it seems more precise. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 19:22, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep Article has way to much information about the character to simply delete.Wikieditor9117 (talk) 16:33, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep I wrote the entire literature and Video Games section. Back then it was on the King Kong character page. Someone came along awhile back and took it along with some other sections from that page and created this franchise page.Giantdevilfish (talk) 11:44, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep Notability; most are familiar with the idea of King Kong being a franchise character but unfamiliar with the legal disputes/specifics of what "franchise" means. That does not make the Kong "franchise" any less notable; readers will likely search for a franchise page on Wikipedia. Agree with points raised above regarding article name change. Alternatively/additionally, initial intro paragraph already needs cutting down; add short paragraph in new space briefly summarizing dispute with links to King Kong character page (there is a section on ownership) Larryeditswikis (talk) 02:48, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * If it is kept I think it should be moved like some have said here, preferably to Works about King Kong or King Kong in media.★Trekker (talk) 12:57, 17 March 2023 (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.