Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of films with similar themes and release dates

Add links
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 No consensus. Cbrown1023 talk 00:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of films with similar themes and release dates[edit]

List of films with similar themes and release dates (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

List of trivia based on original research. —тяеɢощетн (talk) 23:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then why does this article contain 37 footnotes and an external link to an article on precisely the topic in question? Did you even bother to look at the article? This article is incredibly well sourced. --JayHenry 03:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let me clarify: Most of the sources in the article link to movie reviews. In other words, opinions on movies, thus a clear violation of WP:NPOV.--TBCΦtalk? 04:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What part of WP:POV are you referring to? I don't see what section of the guideline you think is being violated. --JayHenry 04:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I meant Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View. WP:POV used to be a shortcut to Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View. --TBCΦtalk? 04:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, TBC, you might want to look at WP:POV, especially where it says:
"Hard facts are really rare. What we most commonly encounter are opinions from people (POVs). Inherently, because of this, most articles on Wikipedia are full of POVs. An article which clearly, accurately, and fairly describes all the major points of view will, by definition, be in accordance with Wikipedia's official "Neutral Point of View" policy."
Movie reviewers are generally good sources for something like "this film has a very similar theme to that film which was just released a little while ago", and statements like that are hardly ever disputed in real life. And if movie reviewers can't be used, then there are news articles on movies with similar themes and release dates, and there's no doubt at all that those can be used in footnotes, if the source is responsible. According to Wikipedia:Deletion policy, the question is over whether something can be sourced, not whether or not it has or hasn't been. So there really shouldn't be a probelm with that. Noroton 01:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See my comments below: "Opinions can be cited with facts, but facts should never be cited with opinions". For example, it's valid to state that numerous authors feel that Shakespeare was one of history's greatest authors, but not so if one were to state that Shakespeare is the greatest author ever born. --TBCΦtalk? 03:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the second discussion, it was pointed out that this isn't some made up concept, but that the concept itself of films with similar themes and release dates was covered in a Washington Post article, as well as mentioned in dozens of reviews of these films. Claims of WP:OR are not valid here. --JayHenry 03:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • It's kind of pointless to have a "list of x" before we have an article on x itself. I wouldn't mind seeing an article about competing cinema trends, considering this list is aribitrarily defined, especially with sentences like "Sometimes, this may be coincidental as the result of two studios independently hoping to capitalize on a current trend." I don't think the idea of a "list of things coincidentally or otherwise competing against each other" should have its own article. Also, the fact that this is the third nomination shouldn't be precedent to end this discussion- a lot of good points were brought up last time. --Wafulz 03:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I thought that it was supposed to be mentioned for procedural reasons if an article has been nominated before. I wasn't offering it as a reason to keep. My reason for keep is that a lot of editors have put a tremendous amount of work into fixing this article, and it's now a good article, with good sources. Also, I disagree with your logic that list of x is invalid if there's no article on x itself. Lists are often a far superior way to present information. Would you argue that List of baseball nicknames is inappropriate because baseball nicknames is not an article? --JayHenry 03:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Good sources? The only links in this article are to movie reviews. Not facts, but opinions, which clearly violates Wikipedia's policies on having a neutral point of view. Also, understand that consensus is not immutable, and that it can be changed.--TBCΦtalk? 04:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • The only links are not to movie reviews. The Washington Post article at the bottom is simply not a movie review. Also, just because something is an opinion column or review doesn't mean everything in the column is unusable opinion. If an opinion columnist says "George Bush is president of the U.S..." that's still a fact. Also, I understand consensus is not immutable. I honestly only listed previous AFDs because I thought that was procedure. --JayHenry 04:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • However, if it's something like "A is a rip-off of B"—as evident in this particular case—then yes, it is opinionated.--TBCΦtalk? 04:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as this is so clearly not a Wikipedia:Neutral point of view or a WP:OR issue, as demonstrated by JayHenry's arguments. Movie reviews are not only notable sources of information, they are also one of the only notable sources of information on films. Opinion problems arise only when Wikipedia editors are imposing their own opinions without any WP:ATT sources to back them up, not when a notable reviewer or author has an opinion that can be cited. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 05:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I strongly disagree that something can be considered fact if a single notable person "has an opinion that can be cited". Otherwise, liberalism would be a "church of godlessness" as according to citations from Ann Coulter's books and Republicans and NRA members would all be racist and part of the KKK, as according to citations from Michael Moore's films.--TBCΦtalk? 08:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • In other words: Opinions can be cited with facts, but facts should never be cited with opinions. --TBCΦtalk? 09:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - there is no possible objective definition as to what constitutes a "similar theme." How many points of commonality constitute "a similar theme" and how is that determined without resorting to impermissible POV judgment calls? How much of a stretch is allowed? The list notes such films as "Lord of War," "The Last King of Scotland" and "Blood Diamond" as having similar themes based on their supposedly all being about "ambitious white protagonist[s] becoming involved in the violence of African politics" despite the films being about an arms dealer with clients around the world, a Scots doctor's relationship with Idi Amin and the Sierra Leone civil war, respectively. The films have similar themes only in a broad interpretation and that interpretation constitutes unacceptable POV. It describes "Flushed Away" and "Ratatouille" as being similar because they both have animated rats in them, despite one being set in a British sewer and the other in a Parisian restaurant. So many of the other items on the list suffer from similar problems that to simply remove them would result in a gutting of the list regardless. Additionally, there is no possible objective definition as to what constitutes "similar release dates." Most of the film pairings indicate that the films were released in different years. Some go so far as to capture films spanning from 2001 to 2006 and include remakes of earlier films as "similar." Given the incestuous nature of Hollywood it is unsurprising to find films with superficial similarities or minor thematic points in common, but that doesn't mean that such superficial similarities constitute encyclopedic information. Otto4711 21:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's why we're letting movie reviewers point these things out. Considering how frequently the media points out these things, sourcing should not be a problem. If it gets discussed in a movie review as being a similar theme and release date to another film, then it's not an original research issue, regardless of whether the films are two months apart or seven years, and there's no need for Wikipedia editors to invent their own criteria for exactly what "similarity" entails. Including all remakes, even ones decades apart, is an editing issue rather than any kind of deletion criteria, and such things can easily be pruned out by normal editing processes. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 23:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The point is that the entire article as a concept suffers from irreparable NPOV issues. One reviewer might look at "Film with white cats released in January 2005" and "Film with black cats released in December 2006" and state in his review that they share "similar" themes and a "similar" release date while another reviewer looks at the same two films and states in her review "It's been too long since we've had a movie about cats!" or "White Cat Movie explored themes of mouse catching while Black Cat Movie takes a totally different approach by delving deep into the world of playing with yarn." and by putting the films in this list we are giving undue weight to the first review. Otto4711 01:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed, the article has a lot of POV issues that have yet to been addressed.--TBCΦtalk? 08:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per JayHenry's reasoning. All that is needed is a few more source citations, but this is a very good list that documents the 'competing cinema trend', and the trend seems to only be getting more more common. --Eptin 00:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am unable to locate any sources that discuss this "competing cinema trend" you speak of. I'm not familiar with the concept, can you point me toward some references which describe it? Otto4711 01:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • How about the one listed in the external links section of the article you're trying to delete? --JayHenry 04:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article does not appear to support the notion that there is a "trend" in Hollywood to release films with similar themes deliberately to compete with each other. Indeed, the article seems to indicate that studios don't like the idea of being the second to release a film with a similar theme, that it is an aberration for films to be marketed as the second similar film and that the conventional wisdom is that it's a bad idea. Otto4711 05:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If your concern is Eptin's statement that the "trend seems to only be getting more common" then I agree we should leave that out. But the WashPost article clearly delineates "a recurring phenomenon," if you're uncomfortable with the word "trend." When I read the list here, I think it already deals with your POV concerns pretty well. When a movie has significant differences as well as similarities, they are noted in the entry. But this sort of thing is really for the talk page, not for a deletion review. Theoretically, there might be a lot of POV concerns on a list like this; in actuality, it's not a significant problem. The list isn't flawed beyond the ability of a talk page to sort it out. --JayHenry 05:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What WaPo calls a "recurring phenomenon" I call a coincidence. And noting the differences IMHO exacerbates the POV problem rather than relieving it, since it requires editors to make subjective judgments as to what the differences and similarities are and whether the similarities outweigh the differences to a degree that allows or forbids exclusion. And I've already explained why appealing to movie reviewers or other external sources is problematic. Babe, Charlotte's Web and Animal Farm are all films about talking pigs. The Royal Tenenbaums and The Texas Chainsaw Massacre are both about dysfunctional families. I Spit on Your Grave and The Accused are both about women dealing with being raped. Yes these are extreme examples (and they're from different years, which for purposes of these examples is not the point) but some of the items currently on the list are also pretty big stretches to tie them together. Otto4711 05:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since you believe the problem is so compelling that the article must be deleted entirely I find it odd that you're not siting examples from the list. Actually, i don't find it odd. The problems are theoretical -- in actuality, this list isn't causing the kind of problems you're worried about.
  • WP:NPOV is about neutral presentation. It doesn't say you hide differing viewpoints or delete articles that contain differing viewpoints, it says you present them neutrally. This article does a very good job of doing that. --JayHenry 18:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, I see above in your initial post that you do site examples you find problematic. I guess it just seems to me that the POV issues you're concerned with are adequately dealt with by including the rebuttal, i.e. "Both films are about rats but one is set in a Parisian restaurant and the other in a sewer system." or whatever. That's neutral presentation. --JayHenry 19:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • But that's exactly the point. The very existence of this list is predicated on the notion that the similarities of the films are greater than their differences and that is inherently and fatally POV-pushing. If critic 1 says Films A and B are similar and critic 2 says they aren't then listing Films A and B on a "List of similar films" at all is giving undue weight to critic 1, even if the objections of critic 2 are noted. Otto4711 21:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess we'll have to agree to disagree here. To me the list just says the similarities are noteworthy. I don't think it suggests the similarities are greater than the differences. I mean, the differences are always greater than the similarities. But that's not what the list -- or this AfD discussion -- is about. --JayHenry 21:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. This is pretty WP:OR as is, but with a few several source citations, a case can be made for keeping it. --Kevin Walter 06:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, it already has 38 sources, but I agree, more should (and easily can) be added. --JayHenry 18:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If nothing else this article provides very useful information, especially for film buffs.60.231.76.127 10:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And just because you can cite an essay WP:INTERESTING or WP:USEFUL (not policy, not guidelines) doesn't mean the list isn't nontrivial, encyclopedic and a contribution that improves Wikipedia. Noroton 02:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Usedup 14:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because the phenomenon described is nontrivial, encyclopedic and a contribution that improves Wikipedia, and the article is verifiable and not inherently POV. Noroton 02:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While an interesting idea, there are no secondary sources in this entire article. It is completely WP:OR. You can't have a list like this without each item having a citation for a secondary source that calls out those two films as being similarly themed and released. --Mus Musculus 14:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, if you look more closely, you will see that (almost) each entry is indeed supported by a secondary source that identifies that the movies are similar themed. -- Black Falcon 03:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a notable phenomenon [1] [2] [3] [4]. The movie industry went 64 years without an animated movie from the point of view of ants, and then two rival CGI studios each release their own ant movie the same year? That's notable, and it's not my POV; it was written about in every major newspaper and magazine in the country. It happens with other movies, and this article is a list of those notable similar films. If someone's OR has snuck into this article without references, feel free to remove it or ask for a citation.Cas510 17:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the 40+ sources in the article and dozens more readily available and/or noted in this AFD. When articles have titles such as "Two Films, One Subject", it's a pretty good sign that the topic is real and receives real-world coverage. I don't know whether to laugh or cry at the notion that movie reviews cannot be used as sources for movies. Yes, they're opinions, but so's almost everything else in the world! Should we delete the Lebanese Civil War article because the classification of violence from 1975-90 in Lebanon as a "civil war" was an opinion? The fact is that the English language includes words, concepts, and classifications that are delibaretly vague. There is nothing wrong with using movie reviews as a source for movies. -- Black Falcon 03:42, 17 March 2007 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_films_with_similar_themes_and_release_dates&oldid=1138011872"