Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of 3-D films

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. John Reaves (talk) 03:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of 3-D films[edit]

List is not more than a list of films at Category:3-D films, with too many red links and does not satisfy guidelines at WP:LIST. Crashintome4196 00:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Category:3-D films does this better. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 00:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Categories are easier to maintain (not saying this list is really hard to maintain) as it is automatically sorted and pages are added as the category link is put on the page. If someone wants to make a new article about a 3-D film and they base it on an existing article, they would know to put it in the category as the example should have the category on it. If the example does not have a link to the list, they may not know to add it there. The category has 64 pages on it (not including the first 4 which aren't movies), the list has only 55 bluelinks; it's missing 9. The category is easier to find. All pages in it have a link to it on the bottom and it is in relevant subcategories. The list has only 3 relevant incoming links. Also, the number of redlinks should not matter, the quality should. For example, "Blonde Emmanuelle in 3-D," "America's Greatest Roller Coaster Thrills 2 in 3-D," and some others just turn up a couple online stores (some not even IMDB) on a Google search, suggesting that some are non-notable "filler" links. If this list really is a helpful tool, (while this is generally frowned upon, there is no policy against it) I would suggest redirecting it to the category Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 22:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Perhaps, if users would describe their rational for making statements as to why a particular article does or does not meet certain criteria, then it would give the community a better opportunity to make fair and considerate judgments. --R e m i 01:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The red links are exactly what makes a list necessary, and not redundant to a category. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 03:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Categories should always be used instead of lists. Red links are irrelevant. Add a new article, and it will appear in the category. =Axlq 06:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ). We have tons of list that coexist with equivalent categories. The things that set the lists apart are the redlinks. GeorgeMoney (talk) 06:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Richard. List could do with some annotation, but with redlinks this is not redundant with the categories. #D films are still comparatively rare, and so a list like this is not unmaintainable. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. List is neither indiscriminate nor overly trivial. Existence of redlinks may be an indication that a list is more useful in this case than a category. It could do with some more context and annotation as mentioned previously, perhaps even go for a sortable Wikitable format so that people can peruse the list by date, as well. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I like to see some "value added" in a list, including in this case at least the year of production, country/language and the method (red/green, polarizing filters, other). Redlinks, if documented by a reference, can spur article development and show why categories are not the be-all and end-all. It is not an indiscriminant list since a movie either is or isn't 3-D, and the number of possible films in the list is not too big.Edison 15:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ever heard of a category?--Dacium 22:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete to broad for a list. Should be kept as a category. DBZROCKS 00:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - while in many instances categories are superior to lists, categories are not automatic substitutes for lists and arguing to delete a list for no other reason than that a category exists is unpersuasive. Otto4711 05:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete use a categorySlideAndSlip 14:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete use a categorySlideAndSlip 14:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per reasoning by Otto4711 and because lists can contain useful redlinks, while categories can't. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 01:50, 28 April 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.