Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rio (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 delete. Essentially per WP:TOOSOON. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:16, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rio (franchise)

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

I'm not entirely convinced that merely having two films with the same characters makes it suitable to have a standalone article about the films' franchise. This franchise article entirely duplicates information that can already be found at the existing articles Rio (2011 film) and Rio 2. There is no indication that the franchise itself is significant as its own entity under WP:GNG; all the sources I'm finding seem to only discuss either the first film or the second film, not the franchise as a whole. We should wait until a third film comes out (or when there is otherwise significant new information about the franchise as a whole) before considering creating a franchise article. Mz7 (talk) 03:48, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A fairly messy article and like written by the nominator, two movies doesn't make a franchise. I think it's a case of WP:TOOSOON. The only coverage of Rio 3 to be found were rumors from 2 years ago. Mr. Magoo (talk) 04:28, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not Delete Look, I know it my be messy, but give it some time. If there is a third movie of rio then maybe it can be a franchise. Crazybob2014 (talk) 15:41, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think the same argument can be made for deleting. It's not that messy of an article, but I think we should wait a little bit for now, and if there is a third movie and enough information, then we can recreate. Mz7 (talk) 19:05, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I admit, it's not that messy in comparison with other franchise articles. Mr. Magoo (talk) 16:39, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:43, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"not delete" if you fix I.e it added a bit about the video games suchs as "angry birds rio" etc and maybe a section about the real "Spix's macaw" and a few other things this page is also useful as a quick link for the highest grossing animted films page.82.38.157.176 (talk) 17:08, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about the video games, and I don't think they're enough to justify this franchise page because they are also part of the information that's already included as a subsection of the first film's article: see Rio (2011 film)#Video games. Mz7 (talk) 18:43, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:36, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for above stated reasons, especially Mz7's. Trivialist (talk) 09:59, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. None of the article's references talk about a "Rio franchise", so the sources don't actually substantiate the existence of the subject. Compare with a article like The_Dark_Knight_Trilogy where the cited sources specifically discuss the "film franchise" in depth. A Train^talk 22:49, 8 September 2016 (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.