Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Shining (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. Missvain (talk) 19:42, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Shining (franchise) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is no evidence The Shining is a legitimate franchise. A book having a few adaptations does not make it a franchise. This is especially true for this, as this article counts a set of two films and a miniseries, which have a completely different look and method of adapting the book, as within the same franchise. Hell, Doctor Sleep isn't even an adaptation of The Shining, it's an adaptation of a different Stephen King book. This article is WP:Original research in assuming this is a franchise, and the only thing this article could be (and is) is a WP:CONTENTFORK of other articles. The "Development" section, for example, just copies every part of those articles' respective development and production sections word-for-word, citation-by-citation. If you want info about the adaptations summarized in one place, you have The Shining (novel)#Adaptations to do that just fine. 👨x🐱 (talk) 15:47, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 16:51, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. The only issue I have with this argument is your mentioning of the fact that “Doctor Sleep isn't even an adaptation of The Shining, it's an adaptation of a different Stephen King book”, which is true, but is known that it is the official sequel to The Shining book and the 2019 film is the official sequel to Kubrick’s 1980 film. However, like I said at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/It (film series), if they are deemed to be necessary for deletion I’ll kindly ask for them to be draftified, though I am not in favour of the nominations and likely in the minority in this situation, I completely understand and respect the decision and will respect the outcome of the final consensus. KaitoNkmra23 talk 05:20, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Nonsensical reasoning given. Nominator seems to have made up their own idea of what "franchise" means.★Trekker (talk) 08:16, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. A franchise typically includes a collection of related media content, which in this case can be categorised into. KaitoNkmra23 talk 09:08, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How on Earth are the miniseries and two films related aside from the fact that they were based on a book? A franchise, to me, would be media that had the same character designs and looks in all of its media. The Shining miniseries and the two films obviously have very different looks, with extremely different stories. "A collection of related media content" is not the definition of the term as it is WP:ORG. 👨x🐱 (talk) 13:49, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• 'Delete' per the users rational, there is no source to indicate the films are connected outside both being based on the book per the prose. There is no critical discussion on the "series" as a whole and are taking individual sources on the film with nothing from critical or third party sources on how they relate. Compare this to the article one Dracula (Universal film series) which actually has sources discussing the timeline and relationship between these films. If similar critical content content could be added, i'd be more comfortable letting the article stay. Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:53, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom. Having multiple adaptations based on the same book, which are not actually related to one another in any other way, does not make it a franchise. As mentioned by Andrzejbanas, there are no actual sources giving any kind of discussion of these movies make a series or franchise. Which means an article that does make this connection is working off of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Rorshacma (talk) 15:20, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and repurpose and retitle to Adaptions of The Shining Novel as a notable split from the main book article which only has a short adaptions section. This article would therefore give a useful centralised summary of four or five separate articles and thereby be of use to the reader particularly for research purposes, in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:38, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and retitle to Adaptations of The Shining per Atlantic306. It may be incorrect to call it a franchise, but it is a legitimate collection in context. BD2412 T 00:44, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. multiple works based on a book is what's meant by "franchise". I've never personally liked the term, but it does seem to be standard. DGG ( talk ) 00:55, 22 May 2021 (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.