Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Finnish 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, default to keep all. Sandstein 19:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Additional note by the closing admin: If you read this message coming from one of the articles listed below, please remove the deletion messagebox at the beginning of the article, and optionally leave an {{oldafdfull}} message on the talk page. Thank you. (It's just too much clickwork for one person...) Sandstein 19:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Finnish films[edit]

Lists by someone who has mistaken Wikipedia for IMDB Lite. A series of text dumps taken from IMDB (copyvio) used to create a series of lists (better in categories) for indiscriminate information (WP:NOT#DIR), so the creator can ultimately create several thousand stubs on utterly non-notable films. (Addendum: It occurs to me that since the text dumps seem to come directly from IMDB, there's the whole reliable source issue, since, really, IMDB isn't one.) Included are the following text dumps and future text dumps:

And probably the rest of the United Nations. I gave up looking for them all. Calton | Talk 01:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people by name.--9ers 01:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC) — 9ers (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Which applies how, exactly? Nothing I can see deals with my objections (text dump, copyvio, better in categories, WP:NOT#DIR, ultimately to be used in creating thousands of stubs about non-notable films). --Calton | Talk 02:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete per nom. All of the list are unmanageable/will go on forever.--M8v2 03:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Facts are not copyrightable any more than the phone book is. Categories and lists are both useful navigation guides. So long as the article space gets filled. I would prefer if the creator filled each page as they are created. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 04:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wikipedia articles shouldn't be one line articles that would be similar to information found in a telephone book. But all lists are inherently directories, thats the reason they exist, as a form of navigation similar to categories. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 18:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB compiled the list in its present form, but even assuming you're correct about that issue, I notice you didn't address the actual usefulness of categories, the text dump issue, or why this doesn't violate WP:NOT#DIR. --Calton | Talk 05:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Let's stop this now before we get overrun with stubs for movies in every imaginable language, many of which are probably completely unnotable. These lists may be useful at some point, but let's fill them with lists of notable films, not a wholesale listing of every newsreel and training film ever made. --Brianyoumans 05:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not a directory. MER-C 05:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete all as per copyvio (facts are not copyrightable, but TEXT IS. A text dump is a copyvio always) and more importantly, as an UNMAINTAINABLE list. These lists clearly cover way too broad of a grouping. The list of every X ever made, where X is a broad category without any qualifications to make the entries notable. The fact that no discriminating quality is used seperate the films on this lists make them lists of indiscriminate information, which violates WP:NOT. --Jayron 32 06:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Note: Alternative solution to this problem proposed below. Remove them from the mainspace, and move to the relevent WikiProject namespace where they can be used to create GOOD lists that DO meet minimum requirements of notability and verifiability and maintainability. --Jayron 32 17:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. (1) Some people find information easier to process in list form, others in categories. An encyclopedia is all about access - how to find the information you want, and these lists enable list-readers to find their information. (2) I don't know what a "text dump" is, but the lists in question are simply titles which link to the articles for the films. I don't see how listing that information is a copyvio. (3) Does this mean all the other lists by country or nationality are next? (4) I have yet to hear anyone suggest an alternative to IMDb, which (so far) I have found useful and acceptably reliable. Her Pegship 06:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- reply the problem is that lists are articles and thus subject to the rules of all articles, such as notability and WP:verifiability and Reliable sources and most importantly various aspects of WP:NOT such as not an indiscriminate collection of information and not a directory. Year made and Country or Origin are not discriminating factors about a subject, and thus should not be the sole basis for the creation of a list. List of Top-100 Grossing Finnish Films or List of Award Winning Finnish Films, if appropriately referened, WOULD make good list articles, as they contain descriminating qualities. Broad categorizations like these are better managed through CATAGORIES and not LISTS, since categories CAN be this general. As always, utility of the information is NOT really a keepable criteria. The fact that some users don't know how to use categories is no reason to keep these lists. --Jayron 32 07:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but redirect to categories. --User:Yacht (talk) 06:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, under the condition that the editor doesn't start further articles before they have a substantial amount of information filled in. Hoverfish 07:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC) Addition: I agree with Wisekwai (see below) in that film is a global issue and quality and notability too. Our lists should grow to include all notable films. Hoverfish 07:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC) (see below)[reply]
Strong keep. I maintain one of the lists and believe it is useful in tracking if articles have been written about certain notable films for the country where my interests lie. I've put a lot of work into it. It wasn't just a text dump. I view the lists as helpful resources. A film would show up in the category section only if it's been written about already. A list is more inclusive. It even lists films that are not yet on IMDb. To me, it is encyclopedic. I would expect notable films from all the countries to be covered. And what I'm getting a whiff of in the above debate is that "foreign" films aren't notable, which, frankly, is disturbing to me. — WiseKwai 07:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Full disclosure: The list I maintain is List of Thai films, which hasn't yet been flagged for deletion by User:Calton, and I'm hoping that it won't until this debate plays out. — WiseKwai 08:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. If these were categories, that would be fine. tgies 08:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, so long as the links within the article only point to notable foreign films (leaving the rest to plain text). It is beneficial for Wikipedia to have lists of films for other countries outside of the U.S./U.K. who have made significant contributions to the film world. I must also agree with Wisekwai's reasoning, as long as there is upkeep with the lists, there should be no reason for removing them. These films will start out as stubs, but if properly maintained and supported, could be an important and notable contribution to the film section of Wikipedia. --Nehrams2020 09:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all I'm a strong supporter of all film WikiProjects here, but I can't in good conscience support keeping these lists. This is clearly something which categorization was designed for rather than lists. To me, a list needs to both be clearly manageable and limited, and needs to provide information in a way that categorization cannot do. Our best lists clearly do this. Few (if any) of these pages offer much that could not be better (and more efficiently) served by means of categories. Sorry, but these articles pretty much are textbook examples of WP:CSL. Girolamo Savonarola 09:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all the articles that are direct copies from IMDB or starting stubs for alphabetic indexes. The list of Thai films cited above is sorted by decade instead of alphabetically, so it clear does something categories can't do. The nominated lists, however, are (1) copied from another source, (2) don't help in tracking articles as we don't have articles for a lot the listed films and (3) alphebetized lists without any annotations which is exactly the field categories are made for. These lists have no encyclopedic value. (side note, most of these index pages should be deleted anyway for being empty lists- Mgm|^(talk) 10:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They "seem" to come from the IMDb, meaning this mass deletion is based on a broad generalization. Copyright violation is a heavy charge and should be dealt with specifically in a case by case basis and not brandied about in a McCathian manner. The only way categories could rival a list of all the notable films from any given country would be the creation of thousands of stubs which is not in keeping with policy. Lists don't mean more stubs, rather categories necessitate stubs en masse. The charge that the lists "go on forever" is ridiculous, everything goes on indefinitely. We should cut off the list of American presidents after 2008 maybe? What say we chop eras, mammals and stars too? Way too many of all of those already. To my mind WP:CSL supports these lists. Again, it would be impossible to do this in category form. The films can be added to the lists without creating stubs. The lists nominated here are all new and with proper maintenance will certainly be a valuable resource. Country is arguably more important than year seeing as it provides an overview of that culture. Obviously it's a huge project, as is Wikipedia itself, and it needs some time. If you can cite specific copyright violations by all means lose those but let's not be hamfisted about this. Doctor Sunshine 12:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They "seem" to come from the IMDb, meaning this mass deletion is based on a broad generalization. Reality check: it's based on comparing the IMDB with the text dumps on Wikipedia. Example: List of Finnish films: A is, item for item, order for order, word for word, identical to the [IMDB page -- except the Wikipedia page is missing "Action Vacation in Finland (1999) (V)". Not a Finnish film to be proud of, I guess. So you can retract the overheated language and massive assumptions of bad faith any time now. --Calton | Talk 08:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And you choose to nominate 26 articles for deletion? The objectionable material could easily be removed from the offending pages. The issues' already been addressed with the author. And, as I've said, most of the pages you've listed are empty. How do you account for their inclusion here? Doctor Sunshine 09:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the Finnish lists and List of Asian films. Neutral on everything else as they are either stubs or have content unrelated to IMDB. Copyvio is not something that that can be consensused away. Facts are not copyrightable and I suppose it could be argued that these lists are just facts, but when you use someone else's exact list right down to the way they formatted it with (year) and (TV) or (V), that's a little much. BigDT 13:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Leave IMDB in IMDB, and have articles only on films which have achieved notability via sales, reviews, and other multiple independent coverage. Edison 15:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment See List_of_films_by_country_of_production for the full list. See also the list of Finnish films - A for his progress in populating the stubs. And of course IMDB and Wikipedia have different policies about the naming of foreign language films. -- Beardo 15:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WiseKwai. Lists in article space can be useful for find unwritten articles to fill in, and for general information, which a category can't provide. --Falcorian ^(talk) 16:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since it's an utterly indiscriminate list (well, except for discriminating against Action Vacation in Finland), it's pretty useless for finding unwritten articles worth actually writing. --Calton | Talk 08:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative solution I have carried on some conversation with the editor responsible for these lists. They obviously took some work, and their objective is noble, even if the execution is misguided. I propose another solution, and that is to move ALL of these lists from the Mainspace to the WikiProject Namespace. It would allow the work to continue within the scope of the project that created them, where they DO serve a purpose, and where they wouldn't clutter up the mainspace with indiscriminate info. Also, they could be recreated or moved back to the mainspace if a clear method of discrimination was used, such as List of Top 25 Grossing Finnish Films by Year or some such change that assured that this lists were finite and managable and verifiable and notable by their very title. Any ideas? --Jayron 32 17:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I align 100% with this alternative solution and please, lets create clear guidelines on such things so that no more energy and enthusiasm get wasted. Hoverfish 19:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC) - I also find Beardo's comment worth serious consideration. Hoverfish 19:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete /Alt. solution The alternative solution above is acceptable, as long as those lists get off of Wikipedia. The sheer volume of these lists makes them unmanageable, and really makes Wikipedia become a database. Lists have to be of manageable size to be considered for an encyclopedia. There is also a serious issue of reliability for a database that broad. Djcastel 18:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep / Alt. solution I also find the alternative solution acceptable, but I don't think that these lists should be deleted out of hand since they do serve as a convenient navigation guide. Also, agree with Doctor Sunshine that we should not be waving around copyright infringement on a list of movies, that's silly. Vikingviolinist 19:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment It should be noted that almost all of the pages listed here are still empty—as they were only created yesterday—and do not violate anything. And the lists are going to end up looking mighty similar to the IMDb as that's the standard method of listing films, Title (Year) (Additional information), and is not exclusive to the IMDb. Personally, I like Year: English title (Original language title Romanization if necessary) but that's just me. I don't see why they should be moved to a different name space or why this project is in anymore of a rush to be certified than any other articles on this site. They need to be seen so that as many film buffs as possible can find and enhance them. Wikipedia has a lot more room than any corporeal dictionary and these (big) lists most definitely contribute to a comprehensive knowledge of world cinema. Doctor Sunshine 19:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- In addition to my addition I would urge everyone interested in the Namespace move to consider keeping this article as it can be moved, if necessary, at a later time but it can't be moved if it's deleted which is what's in the balance at the moment. Doctor Sunshine 20:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why? If anyone wants it the information, they can just go back to IMDB and copy it again. Cut and paste, cut and paste. --Calton | Talk 08:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all I strongly believe that this would be viewed better and easier to keep up with/navigate in a category. I had notified the creator of these pages (Blofeld) when he started creawting them that they probably weren't a good idea and he should talk about it further at WT:FILMS, but he continued to do it (not that that in itself is bad, we love it when people are bold). Further litigations can be found at User talk:Cbrown1023#Note to the editor, User talk:Hoverfish#Lists of films, and User_talk:Ernst Stavro Blofeld#About the new lists of films (and below). Cbrown1023 20:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep from the many above points made. Sharkface217 05:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete from the many above points made and per Jayron ;-) Ohconfucius 08:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - lists of movies by country fall within Wikipedia's encyclopedic scope, and they deserve to be kept. Any text that is copyvio should be removed, but the lists themselves should remain. Also, by being in list form, these lists present the opportunity to add various enhancements later, such as annotations (brief description, directors' names, year of release, etc.). The Transhumanist 09:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep can't anyone see how useful this navigation box is in learning about global film. Obviously for list of American films there will be a redirect to Category@American films. Not every film will be listed. Mostly notable ones which will eventually become articles in the future. The lists will just act ad navigation points to diferent articles on world film. What is the problem with this. Also the lists ar enot endless and can be managed. Look I just want to get on with it rather than waiting and debating Ernst Stavro Blofeld 09:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey I have an excellent idea. Why not just keep the navigation box never delete this it is brilliant but for the countries that have a great number of films and that already have agreat number of articles on wikipedia redirect to category. E.g List of American films there is no point in creating a new list when catwegory has listed most of them automativally anyway. I suggest placing the navigatin box in the categories of country films. However for the countries that as yet do not have entries aor many films yet on wikipedia I suggest kepping these lists. Then once the films develop and a fuller list is created then redirect to categories. Look beleive it or not I would rather not have to create lists unneccesaarily I have redircted both American and British films but i really do think the serve as a start for foreign films which are not on wikipedia. Even for Finnish films once the articles develop and becomes fuller then delete the lists and redirect to categories. Ernst Stavro Blofeld 09:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

However most countries as yet do not have the majority of notable films covered so I suggest the lists are drawn up for most of them and once they develop redirect to categories and remove the unotable films and then delete the lists. American films and British films I have already redirected to category and maybe french film. I will also be drawing uo naviagation boxes of Film by genre and List of actors and List of Film Directors by country and on that I will be redirecting to the categories. Ernst Stavro Blofeld 10:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As for the lists of films by year I suggest that from 1940 to present a redirect is made to categories but the lists again identify what is misssing by year. All of the nominated deletion articles so far are barely covered in the categoriesErnst Stavro Blofeld 10:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but only if the lists are pruned according to notability, not kept as a text dump from IMDb. Once the pruning has been done, most lists could probably fit on one page. Lists like these, with plenty of red links, are useful for promoting the creation of new articles. Alternative solution: Move to Missing encyclopedic articles, the current List of notable films is not very extensive. Lampman 13:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Useful for cross-referencing. --Zleitzen 00:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep but adjust format

Pleas see my comments on the main Wikiproject film talk page. I propose that rather than creat A-z lists of films by country and date that they are changed into chronological order in order of date and year of release. List of films by year would be listed from January 1st to december 31st in order of release and List of films by country in order of date of release which List of thai films and others have very usefully done. Eventually you would have an extrmeely useful timeline of films in chronoligal order by year and country. However a start I think they need to be listed alphatically, unotable films removed and then sorted by order of release. I have no objections if everybody would like the bulk of the listing to be done behind the main space. Definately do not delete them yet I know thety have a potentially very encylopedic purpose. Ernst Stavro Blofeld 16:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about the list of films that are notable are drawn up first on pages like Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/List of missing Bulgarian Films and Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/List of missing Finnish Films and then only the notable ones created. Then at a later date the List of films can be sorted by year and date of release Ernst Stavro Blofeld 17:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. I'd prefer the films just be categorized, but if the lists were to be handled properly, such as in a WikiProjet, then I don't have a major problem with this. Looks like a different issue though. --Wizardman 03:23, 12 December 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.