Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Media 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:39, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Media franchise

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

None of the sources within the article discuss a media franchise. They discuss franchising and how film series are not franchises, but not franchises themselves. This whole thing reeks of WP:OR and WP:SYN. — Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 13:05, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - Sorry if this is assuming bad faith, but this seems to be a disruptive AFD based on the long running conflict at Talk:Ghost_in_the_Shell. The term media franchise is a descriptive term and applies to some of the largest and most complex series that are types of franchises that are different from business franchises like various fast food enterprises that operate under the corporation, but are self owned. A media franchise is different in that the rights are licensed to create and sell works by different entities that are produced separately of the original creator or through secondary companies that have creative and productive autonomy. Like the $5 billion dollar Marvel Cinematic Universe, and the multi-billion dollar Star Wars and Star Trek franchises, the term has a specific definition that includes spin offs and typically an interrelated continuity or theme that runs central to its works. Some of these are cross-generational. The term's usage is clear in business circles, books and academia as a means of describing a specific type of business licensing and while its popularly and usage is greatest in North America, the term is nonetheless a valid concept that should be on Wikipedia. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:39, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I've come across the article in the past (I think when it also featured content on "metaseries") and saw its bad state.— Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 14:12, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Here we go.— Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 14:13, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 14:05, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 14:05, 16 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. There are countless sources supporting the use of this name to describe this concept. See:
 * The idea of the reboot comes from the term for restarting a running but failing computer system. In film or television, the term refers to the idea of taking an existing media franchise and starting anew. Chuck Tryon, On-Demand Culture: Digital Delivery and the Future of Movies (2013), page 90, isbn=0813561116.
 * These days, Harry Potter is just another media franchise similar to Star Wars, X-Men or Pirates of the Caribbean, albeit a massive media franchise. Bernard Cova, ‎Robert V. Kozinets, ‎Avi Shankar, Consumer Tribes (2012), isbn=1136414665.
 * The texts that increasingly engage students of cinémedievalism are perhaps best described by Jenkins' term “world-making,” which includes not only the imaginary ontology of such texts but also their desire to produce a sustainable and multivalent media franchise, coherent in itself but remaining open to future development. Helen Fulton, A Companion to Arthurian Literature (2012), page 539, isbn=0470672374.
 * Also, this entire book: Derek Johnson, Media Franchising: Creative License and Collaboration in the Culture Industries (2013), isbn=0814743897.
 * Cheers! bd2412  T 18:27, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - It doesn't matter if the movie industry uses the term "franchise" differently from the rest of private business. It's a very common term. Wikipedia isn't the arbiter of such things. The article may need to change to better reflect the way the industry uses the term. --Tysto (talk) 01:56, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. Original research and synthesis can be cleaned up.  The topic seems quite notable to me, even if the article may need some work.  This isn't really the place to argue over the definition of franchise – just whether it's an encyclopedic topic, and this almost certainly is.  If you have issues with the content, I suggest an RfC. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:05, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. A look through google books and scholar shows the topic easily satisfies WP:GNG. If the article is currently in a poor state, that's a reason for improving it, not deletion. Siawase (talk) 10:51, 21 September 2013 (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.