Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of epic films:1930s

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 all. Definition of "epic film" is subjective, and thus articles are inherently original research. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:46, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of epic films:1930s[edit]

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

wp:IINFO, WP:NOTDIR, WP:LSC, WP:SALAT. Wikipedia isnt a repository of loosely associated topics nor a directory. If this looks familiar, see WP:Articles for deletion/List of British pop musicians of the 1940s. This series of lists does nothing but restate the category. Furthermore, if a list is really needed, put them all in one list, not a list for each decade. See also

LAA Fan 17:10, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per WP:NOTDIR. A category could easily do the same thing as these lists. --Slon02 (talk) 17:34, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - Although I disagree with the nomination rationale, since the articles in question are neither directories not loosely associated topics. The problem is that the term "epic film" does not have a strong enough generally-agreed upon definition to be able to adequately judge which films should necessarily be in or out, and while there are obvious "ins", such as Gone With the Wind or Seven Samurai and obvious "outs", such as Gertrud, there is a huge and I believe unresolvable middle. Rlendog (talk) 02:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - I started these lists, and to be honest, I lost interest in them. I really don't care anymore and actually agree with Rlendog.TheLastAmigo (talk) 19:41, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all The arguement that a category already holds this info is redudant, per WP:CLN. Lists and categories go hand-in-hand. These lists have much more info than a category could have (cast, director, country, etc), and can easily be expanded. Good work to TheLastAmigo for starting them in the first place - don't be put off! Lugnuts (talk) 06:48, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all Per Lugnuts. These lists just need to have citations added and will help any users understand of what Epic films are with expanded information. Andrzejbanas (talk) 11:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Rlendog. I agree completely. Tavix | Talk 02:29, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would like to say that an excellent point that Rlendog made. There is indeed a lot of gray area here. Unless a substantial intro is added, I don't see how it helps people understand what epic films are.--LAA Fan 05:05, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I couldn't click on the link to epic film in the intro, it doesn't matter. It doesn't need to be re-defined when the main article already tells the reader what an epic film is. Lugnuts (talk) 07:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The definition per the lede of epic film is "An epic is a genre of film that emphasizes human drama on a grand scale. Epics are more ambitious in scope than other film genres, and their ambitious nature helps to differentiate them from similar genres such as the period piece or adventure film." That does not define what is in and what is out. Terms like "Grand scale" and "more ambitious" are hardly objective criteria on which to base inclusion or exclusion from the list. Not to mention that neither the lede nor the "Characteristics" section of the epic film article are sourced, so there is no evidence that even this fuzzy definition is at all a universally accepted definition. Rlendog (talk) 20:45, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As it is confined to the notable ones which have, or should have, Wikipedia articles, it is not indiscriminate, as it is one particular genre, it is not loosely associated. As it gives more information than the bare title, it does nnot duplicate the category. With a list like this, I can not only easily find the article I might have in mind, but I can also see the relationships between them--no category can ever do that. And that one particular person doesn't want to work on it, is no reason to delete an article. Given the quite stable nature of the subject, it does not even matter if it is not actively maintained. If the links change, the bots can fix them. DGG ( talk ) 04:18, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All per DGG and Lugnuts--Mike Cline (talk) 00:23, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, indiscriminate lists and there is absolutely no way to decide what an "epic" film is. Stifle (talk) 08:37, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Defining an epic film is subjective and requires too much original research. Epbr123 (talk) 08:42, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (t) (c) 17:46, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment None of the keep comments above address Rlendog's comment which I believe is very valid - having the definition of an epic film is one thing, but actually naming them is a quagmire; generally either its POV or OR even WITH references. Ryan Norton 20:12, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The main article has a defintion. This is being sidetracked by the tags at the top of the page, that date from mid-2008, that could be about anything in the article. As it's been edited since then, there's the possibility that the tags are redundant. The lists themselves don't explicity need to be referenced, as they should link to articles that back up the claim. It's a simple case of removing entries on the list that aren't in the epic film genre. Arguements to have this as a category fall into the same issue as having the list - IE how is it any less subjective to slap the Category:Epic films to the foot of the page than to add it to the list in the first place. In other words, either both the lists and categories can co-exist (per WP:CLN), or they both need deletion. Lugnuts (talk) 18:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even lists are supposed to be referenced technically; most just aren't because they aren't seeking any sort of status like a WP:FL. The problem is that "epic film" has simply too many different interpretations. Due to procedure generally we can't delete categories at AFD but I suspect the days on that cat are numbered as well. Ryan Norton 15:08, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a list without clear criteria is unencyclopedic. T3h 1337 b0y 20:38, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete i dont think we have effectively defined "epic" with reliable sources. the main article is tagged as containing original research. the term is likely used by marketers and reviewers as desired. I found one book mentioned in google scholar, by Derek Elley, senior film critic at Variety, called "the epic film:myth and history", which according to a summary at amazon, "Discusses American and Italian movies based on stories from the Bible and history and mythology of ancient Greece, Rome, and medieval Europe." Thats not our working definition. so where is it stated what an epic film IS? we all know what they are when we see them, but even pornography has a better definition than this does. I would support maintaining these lists if we could be more precise. a lot of the films here are categorized as epic films, but the articles themselves dont explicitly state that they are epics. I see a whole lot of amateur film scholars at WP trying to classify films more precisely than the rest of the world does. you cant have precision if you dont have accuracy. example: a long jump measured to millimeters when you havent defined what counts as the point to measure from is meaningless. I am sympathetic to the lists, as they would seem to have obvious value. maybe they can be rescued with clear inclusion criteria. maybe its a lost cause to even try to advocate for clear inclusion criteria anymore.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:02, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Rlendog's full argument. Just can't see a stable definition for "epic film" - fine for an article about the subject but not for lists of it. Ryan Norton 15:10, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all It is just a matter of finding a reference calling the film an epic, rather than trying to define what an epic is. I have already added a few references. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:31, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Alll an appropriate subject for a series of lists, and division by decade is a perfectly logical break point. Alansohn (talk) 03:03, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All Doubling with a category is not a valid argument for deletion, as lists provide a very different way of navigating the wiki. The article on epic films shows that this is considered a seperate genre of films and thus a list naming the notable films in that genre seems not unreasonable. Similar things exist for other genres as well (e.g. List of science fiction films), without anyone contesting the validity of such a list. --Reinoutr (talk) 08:28, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:WAX--LAAFan 13:49, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:VAGUEWAVE --Reinoutr (talk) 22:16, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - You just violated your own rule.--LAA Fan 03:08, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all There's no stable definition of epic, and the whole lot strikes me as a major amount of original research. Courcelles 02:13, 16 August 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.