Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of films shown at Butt-Numb-A-Thon

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 no consensus. Sandstein 17:54, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of films shown at Butt-Numb-A-Thon[edit]

Trivial list; also unreferenced, and no evidence of notability. We group films by various means: by director (Alfred Hitchcock filmography), by actor (Buster Keaton filmography), by theme (List of films about animals), by country (List of Japanese films), and so forth. That sort of classification is useful, interesting, and treated in scholarly works. This, however, is not: that some film happened to play at some obscure film marathon is not a defining characteristic of that film, it is of no interest to third parties, and maintaining a record of it only serves to clutter up the project. Biruitorul ^Talk 18:47, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The list is hardly trivial. Rather, it is a means of detailing the various films that have played at this unique festival. Previous complaints focused on the fact that WP's has a policy that such lists not be included in main articles. I feel that this is a good compromise. The creation of a separate list article does not clutter up the project; rather, it provides further details that would be of interest to anyone wishing to know more about the type of films played at this festival. Bobomejor (talk) 19:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Every festival is unique; that does not justify lists of films that have played at every festival. One can get a sense of the type of films played there from this paragraph, but the level of detail here is excessive and unwarranted. Biruitorul ^Talk 19:37, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As each festival is unique, so is each organization in the world, yet WP allows a list such as List_of_Eagle_Scouts_(Boy_Scouts_of_America) which seems equally trivial to those not interested in the organization. Is that list allowed to exist on WP only because the individuals are notable? Are the individual people noted in a list inherently more important than individual films noted in this list? The level of detail provided in the Eagle Scouts listing seems equally excessive and that if each individual listed has an entry on WP then their membership in Eagle Scouts can be listed on their individual entry page. Eagle Scouts of note can simply be mentioned at the Eagle_Scout_(Boy_Scouts_of_America) entry. Achieving Eagle Scout status is noted under "Award Winners" in the categories, but it does bring up the question of what awards are necessarily worthwhile of compiling a list over. One might receive "Employee Of The Month" at their place of work, but such a list would indeed be deemed trivial (and would be so since it has little or no cultural relevance) for WP. However, in that the Butt-Numb-A-Thon has premiered films of note that are part of larger cultural landscape, it certainly seems worthwhile to provide context for a film's premier, including what other films were associated with a particular premier as part of a larger context. The list of films provided here do need citations, but deleting the list quickly does not actually allow for those that would like to research citations the information necessary to do the research if they do not already have the list on hand.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Badedukation (talk • contribs) 20:36, 10 November 2008

Agreed with the above, unsigned poster. Previously, the main complaint was that the list made the original Butt-Numb-A-Thon article too lengthy. Per WP's list policy, this list was made as a compromise and a means of detailing the films played at the festival. Over time, citations will be added to strengthen the article; however, it's worth is inherent. Film festivals like the Sundance Film Festival have lists of all the films that played there each year (i.e List_of_films_at_the_2008_Sundance_Film_Festival). I fail to see how this list is "excessive and unwarranted," when the complete lists for each year of the Sundance Film Festival take up multiple articles; the list of Butt-Numb-A-Thon films is tiny compared to those.

This list should be kept in the spirit of those lists. You can argue that Butt-Numb-A-Thon is obscure, but that's your opinion. The fact that several films have had their first real audience screening there (i.e. The Passion of the Christ and the still-unreleased Trick 'r Treat) make it relevant. It's in WP's interest to keep this list and allow it to flourish. Citations and form can and will be improved. Bobomejor (talk) 21:00, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge selectively. Taking it for granted that the festival itself is notable, there's no context to show why these particular films were shown at a particular festival. One can summarize this information in a more compact form within the article. Rather than devoting a separate line for each film in '01, for instance, one could write a short paragraph that says, "Films shown in 2001 were Fiend Without a Face, The Majestic, Rock All Night, King Kong, Vanilla Sky, Cabin in the Sky, Blood Feast 2, Terror of Tiny Town, and The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring." Or, one could simply write that "The films included the 1933 King Kong, Terror of Tiny Town, and The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring" with an appropriate link to other sites. I'm not sure what the encylopedic value is in describing a list of films that were shown at a festival seven years ago, or last year for that matter. Mandsford (talk) 21:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - one of my biggest frustrations with Wikipedia is that poorly-maintained pages exist for months with no action taken, yet pages with 'potential' like this one, wikified extensively, are cut down as soon as they appear. Aside from the absurdly POV suggestion that this festival is 'obscure' - the list of films that received premieres there suggest otherwise - I would suggest that the page is a few citations away from being an excellent example of a list page. I agree fully that this information should stay away from the main Butt-numb-a-thon page, though. Hammer15 (talk) 03:49, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Without going off on tangents, could you please try to square this list with WP:V, WP:N, WP:LIST and WP:TRIVIA? -- Biruitorul ^Talk 04:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - I have to agree with Hammer. This list has already received attention, as a similar list previously was part of the article, until Biruitorul deleted it multiple times (much to the chagrin of other users who felt it was relevant). As such, it's obviously relevant and of general interest to the community. If it were the only film festival on WP to have a list of films shown therein, that'd be one thing. But, as I mentioned before, the Sundance Film Festival has individual list articles several years back. That sets a precedent that Butt-Numb-A-Thon should be allowed to follow. The specifics of the list can be updated to be more in line with WP:LIST, assuming it's allowed to flourish and remain active. The actual films shown can be fully verified to comply with WP:V and notability, as we've discussed, with pretty subjective. I have no hard feelings toward Biruitorul, but a quick look at the Butt-Numb-A-Thon article history appears to show a lack of compassion for editors who just want to make good-faith edits and allow the article to grow over time. I don't understand that need to constantly undo the changes that others in the community find beneficial.

If the major complaint with the list appearing on the main Butt-Numb-A-Thon article is that it was making it too long or tacked on, this separate list is a perfectly justifiable solution. In WP:LIST it reads, "The list may be a valuable information source. This is particularly the case for a structured list. Examples would include lists organized chronologically, grouped by theme, or annotated lists." Indeed, this list exists as an information source for the films that played at very unique festival consisting of 24-consecutive hours of films. Those films selected are just as much of the experience because many are not readily available any where else, or are considered to intense for most audiences (i.e. rare viewings of the Italian film Addio Zio Tom and the yet-to-be-released torture porn film The Poughkeepsie Tapes). As far as WP:TRIVIA, the guidelines state that "A better way to organize an article is to provide a logical grouping and ordering of facts that gives an integrated presentation, providing context and smooth transitions, whether in text, list, or table." The whole point of this separate list article is to do just that: "To provide a logical grouping and ordering of facts that gives an integrated presentation, providing context and smooth transitions" so those reading, investigating or researching this unique festival have a complete understanding of the films that played during those intense, 24-hour film watching sessions." Again, I fail to see Biruitorul's seeming obsession with quelling the growth of this article and the Butt-Numb-A-Thon main article, but I feel it is hindering what could be quite a valuable, fully cited, informational and interesting addition to the community. Bobomejor (talk) 06:31, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- The Sundance lists are bad precedent, and should also go at some point. Anyway, this AfD is a nice exercise: notwithstanding WP:CCC, it will help settle the issue for the foreseeable future. Biruitorul ^Talk 06:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 13:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and tag for expansion. Having this information in one concise article improves Wiki... and Wiki has not run out of paper yet. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 11:49, 12 November 2008 (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.