Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cult films (3rd nomination)

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 keep and split. Clear consensus that the list article should be kept. There also is strong consensus that the article should be subdivided in some manner. Finally, there is general agreement that significant additional cleanup is required without necessarily determining what that should be. I interpret this as an easy keep, but a recognition that there is much work to be done on the article. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 03:49, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of cult films[edit]

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

List of cult films (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:TNT this could potentially be a very good article if it was started back from the beginning, but most of these films simply aren't considered cult films by any decent standard, leading to a very WP:INDISCRIMINATE list. For every single entry I checked, none of the Wikipedia articles about them ever used the word "cult" to describe them. Unlike the previous AfD, I do not believe the large size is a reason to delete the article. I invite people to randomly open articles for these films and find any mention of being a cult film. Right now it's just a list of films where someone somewhere has called them a cult and not even to a standard where that is mentioned on their own articles, so why would they be of a standard to include them here? Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:00, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I edit extensively in cult film articles on WP. I agree with most of nominator's arguments, except there isn't a great framework for categorizing these films. Just because the articles don't call themselves cult films doesn't mean they aren't. I would love to see some form of categorization that better structures this - but this list seems fairly cohesive when I glance over it. Skirts89 01:36, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Surely we would expect the article to at least mention that it has some cult status. Otherwise it's just a list of thousands of potential cult films where the strongly considered cult films are given the same weight as the ones that are only considered cult by one person somewhere, which is the current criteria. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:13, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 01:47, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 01:47, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are numerous books about cult movies and so the topic easily passes WP:LISTN. WP:TNT is not policy; the actual policies are WP:IMPERFECT and WP:PRESERVE. Andrew D. (talk) 09:47, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm asking people to choose to follow WP:TNT, it doesn't have to be a policy. Of course there should be an article at that name, the point is that the best way to fix it is to start from the start. WP:IMPERFECT and WP:PRESERVE are policies that support deleting this article for the purpose of restarting it. Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:08, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, that is quite false as deletion is not our policy in such cases. The policy WP:IMPERFECT states clearly that we improve such pages by a process of in situ editing. Andrew D. (talk) 10:27, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Perfection is not required: Wikipedia is a work in progress. Collaborative editing means that incomplete or poorly written first drafts can evolve over time into excellent articles. Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome. For instance, one person may start an article with an overview of a subject or a few random facts. Another may help standardize the article's formatting, or have additional facts and figures or a graphic to add. Yet another may bring better balance to the views represented in the article, and perform fact-checking and sourcing to existing content. At any point during this process, the article may become disorganized or contain substandard writing.

It doesn't say we can't delete. I'm not arguing that the article must be perfect, or that it should be deleted for not being perfect. I am disappointed that you think I am saying this. Other than deleting it entirely (and starting it again and making it a great article), the other way to improve the article would be to individually remove most of the entries to the article. The formatting of the article is not an issue, and the article does not lack figures or graphics, and bias is not a problem in the article. I don't see why it's preferable to take the time to remove most of the entries and figure out which ones should be retained, than restarting the article. I think quite clearly that alternative would be the one seeking perfection at all costs, not me. Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:35, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the fence (but leaning to support) - cult is a very notable subject and an article should indeed be created. However, from galncing over the list, I see a lot of films which are clearly not "cult" films. They might be "famous" films or even "good" or "taught in film schools" films, but that does not mean they have a cult following, in the style of say, The Rocky Horror Picture Show has. I'm leaning to agree with the nom here, that the only way to fix this list, is to work from the start, adding only films which fit a criteria, instead of going over more than 1000 films and checking if they fit or not. --Gonnym (talk) 14:01, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Wikipedia has a lot of list-of articles like this, where a single mention of the target word in any source is sufficient for inclusion. The bar for inclusion is very low. The end result is a list that is too long and not authoritative or very useful. This is no one's fault, no one has taken the time to cull the cruft and maintain the list at a higher standard of inclusion. AfD is not the right tool, though, it's not a shortcut. The right tool is the "Edit" button and talk page discussions. -- GreenC 15:00, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Split for reasons already decided at 2nd nomination. No compliance with WP:Before. The Wikipedia death penalty of WP:Delete is totally inappropriate. WP:I don't like it is not a policy based reason to delete. WP:Not paper. This is a waste of a lot of editor's valuable time.
Given its massive size, I think splitting it by Decades makes good sense. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:15, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Death penalty? I was sure to state in the first sentence that the article would most definitely exist, but from the start. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:09, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Andrew D. (talk) 16:30, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm just going to repeat what I said at the last AFD last year since nothing has changed at all. Dream Focus 17:25, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All the entries have references. If reliable sources call it a "cult film" then it should go on that list. The length of the list is not a problem. Best to have everything on one list so you can sort by alphabetical order, by year, or by director as you see fit. Dream Focus 17:34, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Note that if a reference to a reliable source calls it a "cult film" then its on the list. It doesn't matter if a Wikipedia article calls it that or not, we go on what reliable sources say. Destroying an article and hoping a new one will form in its place that is more to your liking is just plain ridiculous. Get on the article's talk page and discuss anything you need to discuss about how to improve it, don't waste everyone's time with a pointless AFD. Dream Focus 17:28, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Dream Focus I disagree that a single reliable source should be our inclusion criteria. I would also suggest some entries on that list are backed by more reliable sources than others. But that suggests cleanup and it seems that this work could be adequately done without TNT on this article. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:40, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with caveat This is clearly a notable topic and meets the criteria laid out at WP:LISTN. However, I agree with some of the other observations that it is too WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Spurious mentions shouldn't qualify films for the list. The bar for inclusion needs to be much higher. We had a similar problem at List of films considered the best and imposed a far more stringent admissions criteria on the list which addressed the indiscriminate nature of it. The list is going to survive the cull, and once it does we need to initiate a discussion on the talk page to come up with some sensible inclusion criteria. Betty Logan (talk) 18:03, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment To all those suggesting I should have started a discussion in the talk page, that is exactly what I did and I didn't get any traction. I decided it would be easier to restart the article and check if films are sufficiently cult status before adding them, rather than checking if every existing entry was sufficiently cult status. So to those saying I am wasting editors' time, deleting the article and recreating it would be the faster way. There's something like two thousand films on this list. I believed this would be successful in the same way as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of box office bombs (2000s) was, which I find to be very similar in characteristics to this. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:09, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Talk:List_of_cult_films#The_ghost_of_the_box_office_bombs_lists? No one participated that agreed with you so you sent it to AFD after a few days? Anyway you believe it was be easier to start a new list from scratch than to work with the existing one. That is fairly ridiculous unless you planned on just leaving most things out and not even checking to see if they met whatever new inclusion criteria you may eventually come up with. Anytime someone wants to destroy an existing article claiming something new and better might magically appear somehow in its place, it is in fact a waste of everyone's time. Dream Focus 21:38, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • The only person that participated was someone I had notified personally. Yes I do believe starting again would be easier, because most of the entries don't meet the standard for inclusion. If it wasn't most then I wouldn't have proposed this. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:43, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Onetwothreeip already has a substantial draft page. That doesn't seem as good as the existing page nor does there seem to be any accompanying plan or discussion. If Onetwothreeip thinks they can do better, they should work up that draft before touching the current page. If and when the draft is better, it can be merged into/over the current page without needing to delete anything. Note that the current page had about quarter of a million readers in 2018 and so it would be disruptive to remove it until there is an equivalent replacement ready. By preparing any radical replacement separately, we would be able to revert if the new version was not well-received. Andrew D. (talk) 22:12, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • Andrew Davidson A quarter million readers is a lot - even more incumbent upon us to be giving them good information. So let's take a look at how well the list does. In examining the first 10 on the list: 7 Faces of Dr. Lao sources to a book about magicians so not RS, The 7th Voyage of Sinbad doesn't appear to be called a cult movie (but is listed as one of several impressive films by a filmmaker), 8 Femmes is said to have, "A cult-like appreciation", 9 1/2 weeks is not called a cult film but is called "an enormous international hit" which is the opposite of a cult film, 9 songs is listed in The Rough Guide to Cult Movies: The Good, The Bad and the Very Weird, 12 monkeys is called part of the new cult cannon, Les 12 Travaux d'Astérix is sourced to a Comic encyclopedia, 28 Days Later is called that in the very first sentence of the source, 37°2 le Matin is listed at cultographies.com (which had an editorial board full of academics), 42nd Street is sourced to a important book about cult films.
            So I see 2 that have no source behind them, 2 which are sourced to poor sources, 3 which are sourced to popular press books/periodicals, and 3 with what appear to be strong sourcing. This hit rate is below what I would like to see but doesn't lead me all the way to delete. Ideally I would like to see a handful of sources be considered as top notch and films in them are auto include, a number of other RS sources be considered reliable and if there are multiple citations to them a film is included, and the rest removed. However, I have other editing priorities. I'm not interested in doing the work of analysis for the whole list, let alone the consensus building it would take to agree on the kind of sourcing (and individual sources) I propose. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:23, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • Andrew Davidson That draft has nothing to do with creating a better list of cult films. That was intended to be the start of splitting up the article into decades because it's a very large article, before I realised the extent of the low inclusion criteria. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:33, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • If you don't want that version of the draft then you try out your TNT theory on it. Try blanking it and then see how you get on with a clean sheet. Get back to us when you've got something to show. Andrew D. (talk) 10:05, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
              • If you intended that to sound passive aggressive then that was successful. You suggest I recreate the entire list myself? Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:15, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
                • Onetwothreeip's proposition is to use TNT to reduce the list to nothing and then start again on some new basis. That's easy – it would only take 5 minutes to make a fresh start on the draft. If the new list is so large that it would require lots of work then what has been achieved? Is Onetwothreeip's plan to delete this popular topic and then just walk away, leaving recreation as someone else's problem? Andrew D. (talk) 13:22, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Andrew Davidson I don't think it should be someone else's problem, but I don't think it should be only my problem also. A small list would also take effort because of determining what I would be excluding (or not including), unless you're suggesting I would essentially blank the page boldly. I could have done that, but I think to carry that out honestly would require it passing AfD. As for the referring to me in third person, I don't know what that's all about, I'm right here. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:27, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
                    • I use usernames rather than pronouns in these discussions for clarity as there are multiple parties and so pronouns can be confusing. Use of the third person also provides some formality and emotional distance which may help in reducing tension. Parliaments such as the UK and Swedish have a convention of this sort for similar reasons. As for the substantive point, I see that the discusion is nearing a conclusion and so let's leave it at that for now. Andrew D. (talk) 23:57, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see I was pinged at that discussion but for whatever reason I didn't get my notification. I would have commented at the discussion had I been aware of it. I have added the article to my watchlist and I am happy to participate in the discussion once the fate of the article here is determined. Betty Logan (talk) 22:38, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per others. AfD is not clean-up, and this is not a remotely questionable list to have. We can trip over lists of cult movies so easily (there are entire books listing them). It's like pushing to delete a list of science fiction films because it's too messy and unsourced. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 01:50, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Erik I'm honestly curious because people keep saying that we should have an article here, but I made sure that in the first sentence I said that was not the issue and there should be an article there most definitely. Do people not believe me? Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:18, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: The article currently has 485,129 bytes of wiki-code. If kept, it needs to be subdivided (perhaps by dacade?). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:24, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore split, and prune sublists mercilessly. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:22, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article is very well sorced and notable, another user has raised the possibility of separating the movies by decade, sounds reasonable enough. Garlicolive (talk) 19:12, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The article has lots of sources. I would suggest, based on the limited sampling I have done (both above and otherwise) that it is not well sourced. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:16, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Other things like winnowing (I strongly support) and splitting (sure) are good ideas but since this is not Articles for Discussion feels outside the scope and is probably better done BOLDLY or on the TALK page. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:27, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I think we're now at the point where this proposal should end. I'm glad that people have appreciated the significant problems with the article, but it was not my intention to propose this article for deletion in order to bring attention to those problems, my intention was entirely to delete and restart this article per WP:TNT, which I appreciate is not nearly a consensus view of the community. This can't be closed by myself early as a speedy keep because not all views except mine were to keep, but this should now be moved to the talk page of the article. As for the splits, surely by decade is preferable to alphabetically. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:27, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually can we keep it open? Clarityfiend has just brought this this family of lists to my attention above: List of cult films: A. We obviously don't need this list if we have the alphabetic lists, so maybe the answer here is a merge and turning this page into an index? Betty Logan (talk) 01:17, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • If we're going to discuss splitting the article instead of the original proposal then that is a good reason to keep this open.

Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:35, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break

@Onetwothreeip, Barkeep49, Clarityfiend, Ruyaba, Andrew Davidson, Gonnym, GreenC, Dream Focus, Erik, Pigsonthewing, Garlicolive, and NinjaRobotPirate: (apologies to the editors I have double-pinged in this discussion). Betty Logan (talk) 01:36, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think we need to start this discussion over. It has emerged there is a family of sub-lists, one of which can be viewed at List of cult films: A. It appears that Clarityfiend split this list into alphabetic lists in March last year. Then six months later it was restored by MagicatthemovieS. The fact that these sub-lists exist change the fundamental nature of this discussion. As we can see from above there is a consensus to retain this list in some form, but we only need one version. My preference is now to copy over any new additions of the last six months to the sub-lists and then restore this page to its index form. After this is done, we can take the discussion to the talk page to determine a sensible inclusion criteria for these lists. Betty Logan (talk) 01:28, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's a sensible solution, but I would prefer they are split by decade than alphabetically. There are several ways to go forward here and I'd like to hear what others think. Maybe we could retain the alphabetical splits as the live versions for now. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:35, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Lists of horror films is organized by decade. But then, if that is the preferred approach then maybe it would be better from an organizational perspective to delete the alphabetic lists and simply break the main list up by decade? You'd only have to work through one page then instead of 27. Betty Logan (talk) 01:43, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Are you suggesting split into decades and then conduct the inclusion criteria and removal process? Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:47, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it matters which way around it is done. But currently we have two lists, and we only need one, and since this is an AfD discussion we should decide which one we are going to keep. If we favor alphabetic lists then let's bin this list, but if we are going to split by decade then we should bin the alphabetic lists IMO. We can determine which at this discussion. After that AfD's role is over and discussion can move to the talk page where the next step can be discussed. Betty Logan (talk) 02:07, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think splitting alphabetically is sensible and the page turned into an index and all the better that work on it has already been done but again argue this is the wrong forum for this discussion. Suggest continuing off the talkpage discussionOnetwothreeip made at the article. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:48, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The list is currently a WP:CFORK which is serious. The correct solution is to immediately remove one of the forks to ensure any edits are to a single copy, to prevent further potential loss of data and confusion among editors and readers. If someone wants to work on trying to reconcile the two lists they can at their leisure, the two lists are still available in the history. -- GreenC 02:42, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - It's getting a bit confusing but I think first we have to make the consensus clear that this should be split. Do we all !vote to split the article? It would be better for this to be eventually closed to split rather than simply keep. Then we have to decide if we're going to delete the alphabetical lists and keep the long list, or delete the long list and keep the alphabetical list. I think keeping the long list makes it easier to split it into an article by decade, but who here is able to split the list by decade? I tried to do so on one of my user page drafts and was unsuccessful since the references were lost. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:48, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ruyaba, Andrew Davidson, Gonnym, Dream Focus, Erik, Garlicolive, and NinjaRobotPirate: Do you agree this article should be split? If so, how? This way we can at least end this AfD to split. I note that Clarityfiend, Pigsonthewing, 7&6=thirteen, Barkeep49, Lugnuts, Betty Logan and myself have already indicated support for a split. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:14, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'll say this - if the page isn't going to be culled, then a split is needed. If one is going to happen, then we can wait and see what the results are after. However, I doubt anything will change, so split is a safe bet. --Gonnym (talk) 22:17, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I had posted on the Talk Page, but I would be in favor of a split by decade, it seems it would more well organized this way. Garlicolive (talk) 23:52, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how to salvage this article. I gave up years ago. But a split sounds reasonable. If we have to choose between decade or alphabetically, I guess decade sounds like it would have fewer subpages. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:34, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Who's volunteering to split by decade? It took me a fair chunk of time just to get the references copied properly for the alphabetical split. Sorting by decade is going to be even more work. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:51, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think that we should honor the work you did those months back there and let it sorted alphabetically, if it is so much less work. Garlicolive (talk) 17:16, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be possible to combine all the alphabetical tables, sort them by year, then split it up by decade? Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:58, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
no idea what i am doing i just want to add a link to the main page so there is some content instead of a blank space where the list should presumably be.. test- List of cult films: A
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_cult_films_(3rd_nomination)&oldid=1073183555"