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. – Joe (talk) 10:02, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of franchises that have won Academy, Emmy, Grammy, and Tony Awards[edit]

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

Contrived analogue to List of people who have won Academy, Emmy, Grammy, and Tony Awards. The EGOT for individuals has been discussed by multiple sources; this does not appear to exist anywhere besides this article. Also, given the number of people that can be involved in any part of a media franchise, winning four different awards isn't much of an accomplishment, and misses the point of the original EGOT: one person winning awards in multiple fields. Trivialist (talk) 03:16, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:26, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:26, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:26, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:27, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While I see your point on the first argument (with the exception of People's EGOT article, which we already talked about here), your second one seems to have no logic. Just because a lot of people are involved in something doesn't mean it doesn't have value. I'd argue that a EGOT for a franchise is harder, because it may only have one (maybe two) shots at actually being up for the awards, where people can be up for it as long as they continue working. You removed this section on the main article two years ago because "franchises winning multiple awards not as impressive as one single person doing it", so I built up the list on the talk page to prove hard it was showing how close some others had come. I finally added in February of 2016, and it stayed until September of this year, when you removed it again. I put it back on, since you were the only one against it, and you removed it after the talk page discussion which pointed out that the article was called "people". That discussion ended in a suggestion to create this article. I keep trying to add what I believe is meaningful information, and it seems like you are trying to remove this information at every step of the way. Elisfkc (talk) 03:50, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In case the above post wasn't clear. Elisfkc (talk) 04:34, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:OR. EGOT refers only to people, not franchises. None of the sources are about franchises, nor can I find any. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:28, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this really depends on whether mainstream articles have been written up to describe franchise EGOTs or "franchise grand slams of acting". If the editors are synthesizing this information, then it should be deleted. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:47, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:34, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is trivia, but it is an interesting bit of trivia. It is not the case that every kind of compilation in Wikipedia must be a compilation discussed as a whole elsewhere. We can develop lists that combine verifiable pieces of information in interesting ways. The list is not indiscriminate, considering that we do gather people with the same credential. bd2412 T 04:00, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an article for Wizard of Oz EGOT [1] and the four other franchises that mention it, but the rest is still original research. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 04:23, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If the receipt of, for example, three of the awards can be sourced, I have no problem with mentioning those in the article. Notably, more people than franchises have accomplished this feat, which shows that it is actually harder for a franchise. As an alternative, we could have something like Most awarded franchises that looks only to total awards won without focusing on the EGOT aspect. bd2412 T 12:41, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The list depends on a particular view of what constitutes a franchise. Is Wicked a part of Wizard of Oz? Why doesnt Woodstock merit an incomplete EGOT? These are questions which do not have easy answers. Is this something we leave to the experts? Spintendo ᔦᔭ 10:27, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete There is no broad consensus that this is a thing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:23, 28 December 2017 (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.