Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of films with unexposed contents (2nd nomination)

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 as WP:OR. No one could verify that "unexposed contents" is an actual, notable term or that these films (or any others) have been listed together on that basis. End close. As a side note, this article attempted to distinguish the concept from MacGuffin, but there is no requirement that a MacGuffin be defined or revealed to the audience (MacGuffin notes that "the specific nature of the MacGuffin may be ambiguous, undefined, generic, left open to interpretation or otherwise completely unimportant to the plot."), and many of those film elements listed here have been identified as MacGuffins (such as the briefcase in Pulp Fiction). postdlf (talk) 16:04, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of films with unexposed contents[edit]

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

Not a notable topic, and likely too common for anyone to have bothered writing about. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:53, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete First of all, it's my understanding that "list of X" shouldn't exist unless "X" exists, and in this case "X" (Unexposed contents) does not — it's just a redirect to this list. Second, so many films have it that it's not worth listing. And third, it's completely unsourced WP:OR. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 20:19, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article been a part of Wikipedia for over five years (since January 2006) and survived one AfD immediately upon its creation. It has been viewed 1491 times in the last 30 days (355 times within the past 24 hours) and has a discussion page with 13 postings. It provides information not available in another article and involved quite a fair amount of effort with specific titles listed, each of which is sourced within its own individual entry. WP:Other stuff exists to an extensive degree --- there are scores of articles structured in this manner --- some have the word "list" in the title --- others do not (List of black-and-white films produced since 1970, Bob Hope short subjects, List of films that most frequently use the word "fuck", List of ghost films, List of drug films, List of films containing frequent marijuana use, List of films featuring May–December romances, List of films with overtures, List of live-action puppet films, List of Saturday Night Live feature films, Skyscrapers in film, Unsimulated sex in film, List of films about angels, List of films about mathematicians, List of films about animals and others). To avoid stereotyping this entry as merely a list, the title could be moved to Films with unexposed contents since it both explains the genre and supplies a list. Also, such articles tend to be under the care and supervision of members of WP:WikiProject Film and we should see input from some of them on this matter.—Roman Spinner (talk) 04:42, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"the title could be moved to Films with unexposed contents since it both explains the genre and supplies a list" - I see absolutely no evidence that this is a genre. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:45, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SYNTH and per WP:NOTDIR. This list appears to be based entirely on original reasearch. Further there is no evidence to suggest that films and unexposed contents is a notable cross-categorization.4meter4 (talk) 11:53, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced - hard to find any information on this topic that isn't taken straight from Wikipedia. The creator of the article admits it's original research in the 2006 AFD. The fact that it's been here a WP:LONGTIME or is a WP:POPULARPAGE shouldn't be taken into consideration. Denaar (talk) 00:08, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research unless it can be shown that (1) the topic of "unexposed contents" has received treatment in reliable sources and (2) such sources discuss the listed films in that context. Deor (talk) 13:24, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A few additional comments: The point at 04:45 above, regarding "unexposed contents" not being a genre, is certainly valid. A more appropriate term should have been chosen: possibly "subject", "theme" or "concept". As for WP:No original research, which seems to be a key point of contention, the guideline states that WP:OR is "facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—for which no reliable published source exists. That includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources." List of films with unexposed contents contains no original research --- there is a link to each title which, in turn, is sourced to external reviews that elucidate the respective synopses, while the brief write-ups within the list explain why those films belongs on the list. If that qualifies as original research, then the thousands of lists within Wikipedia would all need to be nominated for deletion since each list which is not copied-and-pasted from somewhere else is, by definition, an original work, freshly compiled by the author, centered upon the author's personally chosen subject grouping. Trivial lists are subsequently nominated for deletion, while the non-trivial ones are allowed to remain, all under subjective criteria, but answerable to objective consensus. Those who feel that this list is trivial should vote to delete it for that reason, rather than for WP:OR. If we push the point of original research to its limit, then the hundreds of thousands of Wikipedia synopses of books, plays, films, TV shows, video games, etc, can all be tagged as WP:OR and targeted for deletion. However, as we all know, that is where the review process enters. If a synopsis is incorrect or if an entry does not properly belong on a list, members of the community will make revisions on a continuing basis. Rather than deleting the entire article, individual entries should be challenged and discussed, thus involving all who care about the subject and the experience.—Roman Spinner (talk) 03:26, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, yes, it's trivial too, but it's also OR because we would need sources saying that "unexposed contents" is a thing in film and discussing it in significant detail. For example, while List of films that most frequently use the word "fuck" could certainly be better sourced, there are sources (such as this one and this one) that discuss the use of the word "fuck" in film and its importance in the film world. Does that help? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:42, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice and userfy or incubate on request, else Move as many editors in this and the previous AfD have suggested In my Google research, I could neither prove nor disprove that "unexposed contents" exists or does not exist. Stating that it is common and then a WP:VAGUEWAVE that it is not notable is not a solid deletion argument. Water is common, too. There are no references in the article to show that the concept is used by scholarly sources, but there is consensus in this AfD that the concept by an unknown name exists (such as "common", "...many films have it..."). (note that this post is an edit conflict on a premature AfD closure, a closure that took place in less than 6 days.) Unscintillating (talk) 16:45, 7 May 2011 (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.