Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of media that employ the Wilhelm scream

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. Maybe some content can be merged back to Wilhelm scream article, if there are any volounteers, let me know. Tone 18:35, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of media that employ the Wilhelm scream

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

This list appears to be a response to the removal of uncited examples fomr the parent article, Wilhelm scream. Virtualy none of these are cited, and many of those which are turn out to be based on sources which are speculative or unreliable. What encyclopaedic purpose is served by saying, without sources, that a particular sound effect was used in [an unspecified number of episodes of] a TV series? It's an indiscriminate collection of almost entirely unsourced information on an completely arbitrary intersection between a sound effect and other media. Guy (Help!) 11:28, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No way could it ever be sourced. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 14:37, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unreferenced original research. No encyclopedic value. — Rankiri (talk) 15:17, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Screaming merge back to Wilhelm scream, from which it was spun out on October 29, and where it continues to exist in historyspace anyway. At some point, a list may be perfected to the point that it overcomes the problem of unverifiable and difficult to explain even when it is verifiable (to its credit, it does pretty well by describing a scene in some of the films). Mandsford (talk) 18:11, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It really isn't possible for this information to be cited since no production team is going to blatantly advertise the use of it. However, it serves as a useful tool to highlight the popularity of the Wilhelm scream. I really don't see the harm in keeping it - I don't see any blatant instances of people adding nonsense to the page and the majority of recent entries have included detailed entries on where in the movie/feature the scream has been employed. ῤerspeκὖlὖm^{in ænigmate} ^{( talk )} 18:38, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no need to merge all this original research RadioFan (talk) 20:16, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I must say that this article was a very interesting read for me and a friend of mine. I believe that the specific references to the scenes in the films is a good source, too. I mean, this doesn't come from anyone else's research, as do websites. It's pure original. These references cannot be unreliable. Besides there are so many films, TV shows, games, etc. that employ this scream that I believe it is a necessary article. Thanks and God bless! Master Frederique (talk) 04:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We cant keep articles because we like them or find them useful. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought or research. There are other places that are more appropriate for this.--RadioFan (talk) 11:43, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this is a bad example of a list being used as a platform for original research. Lists should not be based on hearsay, speculation or unreliable sources. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm not sure either way if this is not up to Wikipedia's standards but I remember using this specific article in the past. The Wilhelm scream is notable in my opinion (as you can see by the numerous references in film, etc). Such a large list could not easily be merged into an article. Keeping this list as its own article is the best suited placement. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ]:[ Talk ] ~ 20:28, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Trivial and impossible to source, almost every entry is original research. While the scream itself is certainly notable, every use of it isn't. Rehevkor ✉ 03:14, 27 March 2010 (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.