Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of films with similar plots
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Mangojuicetalk 04:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
List of films with similar plots[edit]
Seems to be original research. Also, it doesn't define how similar the plots have to be in order to be included in the list. Do similar plots only need similar characters? Similar themes? Similar inspirations? Similar locations? Or do they need all four?--TBCTaLk?!? 08:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete(Neutral; see below). This is more something that should be in the film entries themselves. This list is not even restricted to a specific plot. Any plot similar to another will do. More focussed lists like List of animated films about animals (to include Madagascar, The Wild, Shark Tale, AntZ, A Bug's Life and Finding Nemo) for example would work much better. The lack of focus means it's a indiscriminate collection of facts, which WP is not. - Mgm|(talk) 08:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]- Keep It needs work but doesn`t deserve deletion.Andycjp 15th Sept 2006
- Delete It's a pretty interesting collection of trivia, but it is WP:OR and I think it also qualifies as an "unmaintainable list." The criteria is so vague, we could probably put nearly every movie ever made on it, if we sat down and thought about it. It lists two films about Wyatt Earp as having similar plots, but you could say that about any two biographical movies about the same person. Given the loose criteria, why not include the various film versions of Romeo and Juliet -- and others based on them (ie. West side Story)? As well as the hundreds of other films based on Shakespeare, mythology, the Bible? They would certainly qualify as "having a similar plot." And that way lies madness...or a fun party game. But not an encyclopedia article. Dina 12:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The introduction to the article states that what it is documenting here is the phenomenon of competing studios either coincidentally or deliberately releasing movies with very similar premises, at the same time (e.g. in the same season, or year). Certainly such a phenomenon has been talked about in the past — the sudden spate of asteroid impact movies a few years ago, for example. Here's a whole Usenet thread on the subject. Here's a film reviewer giving examples from the 1960s. Here's a reader writing in to a magazine asking about such movies. Here's someone discussing how people appear to copy James Cameron a lot. Here's someone explaining one strictly financial motivation. The problem, as indeed was stated last month on this article's talk page, is sourcing, in order to prevent the article straying off into original research territory. There are plenty of people who have compiled lists of "copycat movies", such as this one and this one. But they aren't particularly good sources. However, this is a fairly good source, being a magazine article.
If the article actually mentioned the common name for these movies, "copycat movies", it would probably help (a) to clarify what the list is actually of, and (b) editors to look for sources. Uncle G 15:24, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The introduction to the article states that what it is documenting here is the phenomenon of competing studios either coincidentally or deliberately releasing movies with very similar premises, at the same time (e.g. in the same season, or year). Certainly such a phenomenon has been talked about in the past — the sudden spate of asteroid impact movies a few years ago, for example. Here's a whole Usenet thread on the subject. Here's a film reviewer giving examples from the 1960s. Here's a reader writing in to a magazine asking about such movies. Here's someone discussing how people appear to copy James Cameron a lot. Here's someone explaining one strictly financial motivation. The problem, as indeed was stated last month on this article's talk page, is sourcing, in order to prevent the article straying off into original research territory. There are plenty of people who have compiled lists of "copycat movies", such as this one and this one. But they aren't particularly good sources. However, this is a fairly good source, being a magazine article.
- Comment: If the list can be restricted to the phenomenon Uncle G is talking about I have no problems with it, but it should be renamed at the very least. Either to Copycat movie (and describe the whole thing instead of just giving examples) or list of copycat movies. - Mgm|(talk) 17:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rewrite and move to List of copycat movies per Mgm. Danny Lilithborne 18:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rewrite and move to List of copycat movies per Mgm. Seems more clear-cut. --Dynamite Eleven 19:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Unmaintainable, unencyclopedic. If such a information is important it belongs to the article. Pavel Vozenilek 22:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep but add citations in the form of links to reviews. --Ellissound 23:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, add cites. Calwatch 07:16, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, it's a fascinating subject. Squallypukkerdum 10:08, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep (in some form -- is there a Wiki site for just lists?) I came here this morning specifically looking to see if someone had made such a list. I found it by lookin up Antz. I view it as interesting trivia, and I don't care how accurate or consistent it is, because I can look at the short descriptions and decide for myself. danwWiki 18:42, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- neutral completely unmaintainable and completely OR. Yet I can't resort to the idea of deleting this fun trivia. I wish we could move all this out of the encyclopedia and into WikiTrivia or something. Pascal.Tesson 20:58, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, and move per above. -- Wikipedical 04:54, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep; many of the films listed here are very subjective (Finding Nemo and Shark Tale are almost completely different, bar both being about fish). Would only support keeping with cites from reputable reviewers. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 18:13, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. Agree that it may be original research, but in most cases the films are obviously related. "Released within a close period of time" basically says it all here. I was googling for this list (for the Pixar copycats in particular) and finally found it here. --71.231.203.169 03:46, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep. The information is quite fascinating. And some of the films cannot be called original research. Every critic drew harsh comparison from the Wild to Madagascar, the same can be said for Antz and A Bug's Life. Calicore 04:34, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The article should be renamed "List of Copycat Films" and citations should be given. Naufana 19:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, delete, a million times delete. Original research and subjective in every way. — MusicMaker 03:27, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete. Although it is an interesting list, it is definitely original research. -tcwd 01:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Nice information that belongs on Wikipedia. The "no original research" nonsense gets another couple rounds to the brainpain. Scumbag 07:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This info is trivia, but many critics and articles bring up the topic when similar movies appear close together. Plus I like having it in one place to see how common it really is. I don't like the "List of films with similar plots" title because that can be applied to thousands of films, particularly remakes or variations. "List of Copycat Films" is much better and more accurate to the list being created. --Mtjaws 15:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. Technically it's original research, but the information arguably holds some value for the interested reader.
- Keep. This is not the most factual and encyclopedic page on Wikipedia, but it is much more interesting than, say, Brewster, Nebraska, and interesting should count for something. It is also probably the only such list on the entire internet, and to lose it would be a shame.
Amber388 14:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This is a real "phenomenon" and noted by various sources both on the internet and in print/broadcast media. This is not OR, it's just not sourced very well. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 16:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This shiz is fo real - tru dat tru dat--Dante Alighieri
- Keep and rename - though perhaps List of "copycat" films with a comment that films that seem to be related. -- Beardo 08:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - the phenomenon of Hollywood, coincidentally or not, simultaneously producing two films with similar plots has been noted in the trade papers and elsewhere (there was an article in The Economist about it in 1999) and the article about this is both noteworthy and interesting. ProhibitOnions (T) 20:56, 24 September 2006 (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.