Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of films featuring crossword puzzles

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. When evaluating consensus in a debate like this greater weight is given to arguments which are based on Wikipedias content policies. As in most deletion debates, the core issue is if reliable sources have discussed the topic to an extant that an article can be created without relying on original research. The consensus here, with policy based arguments given appropriate weight, is that this topic does not meet that standard. However, I wouldn't consider this a clear mandate that this content is wholly inappropriate for Wikipedia, and it may be possible to create a broader article or list relating to puzzles in the media. If anyone would like to undertake that task I would be happy to userfy a copy of this for them. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:28, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of films featuring crossword puzzles[edit]

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

Title says it all. WP:NOT a list of indiscriminate information. If this isn't a case of such an indiscriminate list, what is? Also attracting WP:NFC violations, as the creator is apparently trying to illustrate every entry in the list with a non-free screenshot. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:53, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Made me laugh when I saw that someone had actually started such a page, I think it should go on the list of examples of indiscriminate lists! Most obviously an indiscriminate list. Ravendrop 13:02, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nominator and Ravendrop. This is one of the least encyclopedic articles I've come across on Wikipedia. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 13:08, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, very much an indiscriminate list. I cannot imagine how featuring a crossword puzzle would be notable. Whatever next, List of films featuring dark blue coffee mugs? JIP | Talk 13:59, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because it's amusingly trivial Just joking Delete as a non-notable list. Jay-Sebastos (talk) 17:01, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because it's as notable as many pages that seem to at least implicitly/tacitly pass notability guidelines, including at least some of those that I list below (which is just a small chunk of many similar film-list pages on Wikipedia). I'm (clearly) new here, but would love to at least know why this list is inappropriate even though all those below seem to be—such explanation would change my vote (i.e., my comment here is primarily a request for more information). Disclsure: I am the article's creator. (Also, I can certainly agree that the page is certainly not particularly "encyclopedic," at least in terms of not being comprehensive—but I didn't think comprehensiveness was a required criterion for a page.)

Jahorwitz (talk) 22:51, 26 February 2011 (UTC) — Jahorwitz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

keep The goal of Wikipedia is to collect information, not to bow to those who would like there to be nothing here at all. This article is new, contains useful information and should be given a chance to grow. There are literally tens of thousands of articles similar to this on Wikipedia and I find it very sad that there are so many deletionists on Wikipedia (I don't know that any commenters are deletionists-- I just hate the attitude of delete-by-default). I've previously suggested that perhaps a broader name might be appropriate (e.g., Crosswords in the media). I'm not sure if I think that's a good idea or not at this time. For those people who would argue against this page, I would particularly like to know how you can justify any one of the pages listed by jahorwitz if you think this page should be deleted. Is Unsimulated sex in film ok just because it's more titillating? It's certainly no more notable. What about List of post-1960s films in black-and-white? My goodness, how is that better than List of post-2010 films in 2D? List of live-action puppet films and List of stop-motion films have existed for 4 and 5 years, respectively, and I consider them to be far more trivial than this page, which gets at the interesection between two completely unrelated art forms. List of films that most frequently use the word "fuck" has existed for 7 years with well over 1500 edits and if you want to talk about an indiscriminate list, that one tops this one any day. But I won't suggest it should be deleted because I think Wikipedia is better with this information. Can anybody produce an argument as to why this page should be deleted that can explain why List of films that most frequently use the word "fuck" should continue to exist? And, no, the fact that it's been around for 7 years is irrelevant. I fully expect the deletionists to win because generally they have 100x the time on their hands than people like I do, but it really does hurt Wikipedia. I also cite WP:DEMOLISH, WP:POTENTIAL, WP:DEADLINE, AND WP:CHANCE RoyLeban (talk) 23:17, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The goal of Wikipedia is to be an encyclopedia. We can come up with a multitude of topics, especially loosely associating elements into truly indiscriminate territory. You propose a prose article, and I would be for that, but I am not seeing any coverage about crossword puzzles being featured in films. Topics like unsimulated sex and post-1960s B&W films have been discussed significantly, so lists of these kinds of films may be pertinent. Here, we do not have any indication that this kind of list is meaningful. This topic is not in the truly superficial territory (such as list of films featuring use of pencils), but we should be able to verify this kind of topic to determine if it is meaningful. Films that feature drugs, ghosts, or May-November romances will have coverage. This topic could qualify more than use of pencils, but there's nothing out there to indicate the contextual relationship that would warrant this list. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:28, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and I'd like to see a list of films featuring acrostic puzzles as well. – Athaenara ✉ 23:20, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why keep? Jay _{Σεβαστός}^discuss 22:09, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the reasoning posted by RoyLeban, Gnat, and Myles, among others. – Athaenara ✉ 02:18, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Crossword puzzles differ from "dark blue coffee mugs" in that every puzzle is different and they (the good ones anyway) are created by people who consider it an art. I would like to see this page evolve into a discussion of puzzles in films, not simply a list.----Angela —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.79.130.26 (talk) 23:59, 26 February 2011 (UTC) — 173.79.130.26 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Such an expansion would only be possible if it could be sourced. So far, all of the list is sourced merely to the movies themselves, or accounts that mention the crossword puzzle merely in passing while recounting a plot. The author has also apparently been trying to trace the newspapers shown in the films to real-world issues of newspapers featuring those specific crosswords, and is citing the newspaper issues. While this is faintly amusing, it is obviously "original research". Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:47, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agreed with many of the points above. Crossword puzzles are unique creations, like movies, no two are alike. The intersection of the two is quite intriguing, especially as they find their way increasingly more central to plots. In addition, while the 'delete' voters above may consider them less notable than Godzilla or gay bathhouses, I'm not sure that the multitude of Crossword solvers would agree. --Gnat (talk) 00:32, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As a regular crossword puzzle solver, I can say that it's not a question of whether crosswords are more or less notable than Godzilla or gay bathhouses. It's a matter of whether a crossword merely appearing in a film is significant or notable enough to bother listing such appearances together. The Godzilla list is easy because it's a major character, and characters are a rather substantive part of films. I'm not going to defend the gay bathhouse list beyond saying that depicting one necessarily involves a bit more investment of a film's time and narrative, while a crossword puzzle may be nothing more than a prop in a single scene that may or may not even get referred to in the dialogue. I don't think it's a stretch to say that settings > props in most circumstances. But again, these are apples and oranges, and this list needs to stand on its own two feet. postdlf (talk) 16:56, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Absolutely. Please don't delete these lists just because a few people of apparently limited imagination find them "inconsequential." As a professional writer who has used Wikipedia lists so many times in recent years, I can tell you that lists, even of oddball and seemingly trivial topics, can be pure gold to writers and researchers. There are puzzle historians, screenwriters, editors and others who could use this particular list to good advantage. I've been paid for articles that would not have been written had I not found wonderful material on lists such as these. I can understand that their value is poorly understood by bean counters and literalists, but the lists are unheralded gems; you never know who's goind to find something useful in any given compilation. That even a few people found it worthwhile to contribute to this one means there's interest in this material. In Wikipedia you can also find "Lists of songs featuring Andalusian cadences," " Lists of songs about recovering or former alcoholics," and "Lists of songs by reality television contestants." I suppose those would all sound laughable and dumb to the anal deletionists, but I would vote to keep all of them in. They're what make Wikipedia ten thousand times richer and more useful than any print encyclopedia. Myles (talk) 01:59, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as indiscriminate. Listing any film that merely "features" a crossword puzzle is complete trivia, as the inclusion threshold is too low (or absent entirely) for it to be meaningful information, either about the films or about crosswords. It's too easy for it to be just a prop, incidental to or even in the background of a scene, just to give a character something to do when they're waiting, drinking the morning coffee, or to show that they are urbane. I don't see any reasons to keep above that aren't textbook WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS "arguments". It's possible that this could be salvaged if it were refactored into List of films about crossword puzzles, but I don't see any more than two on the list that might qualify, one of which is a documentary that is already in the "see also" section of crossword. If it can be shown there are more, then maybe. postdlf (talk) 04:02, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with RoyLeban's comment, above. -QuipRosen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quiprosen (talk • contribs) 16:03, 27 February 2011 (UTC) — Quiprosen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep I agree that listing all movies with a crossword is not necessary, but a movie which includes a crossword as more than just a prop is absolutely notable. As the post below quoting all the lists of movies indicates, there are several pages already similar to this one. Deleting this would be complete hypocrisy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.65.47 (talk) 19:34, 27 February 2011 (UTC) — 99.90.65.47 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete - indiscriminate/trivial/unencyclopedic cross-categorization per postdlf. If it were films about crossword puzzles, then a list might be warranted, but "featuring" is just indiscriminate as a criterion, as crossword puzzles are usually just props/trivial elements of a movie, and not notable features, unlike most examples given per Jahorwitz's WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST argument.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 21:22, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe crosswords found in media other than print would be categorically interesting, but it should be relocated under the general heading for crossword puzzles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.104.190.56 (talk) 16:42, 28 February 2011 (UTC) — 98.104.190.56 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete as indiscriminate. Having a crossword puzzle featured in a film is not a notable topic. You are not going to find topics on the subject and as such fails WP:SALAT as too narrow. Tavix | Talk 16:44, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIR: "Wikipedia articles are not... lists or repositories of loosely associated topics". While the article title talks about films that "feature" crossword puzzles, the vast majority of the films on the list do not feature them (except for Wordplay, which is pretty much about them). The puzzles are elements in these films, certainly, but they do not drive the film at all. Thus, the topics are only "loosely associated". I researched for any significance of crossword puzzles used in films, but there is nothing. The relationship between the two is entirely superficial. The most relevant topic I found is puzzle film, which would be a better topic to create and cover on Wikipedia. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- Danger (talk) 15:47, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Films featuring crossword puzzles very often have nothing to do with crossword puzzles in its plot, theme or motifs. More often than not, it is merely a prop that carries no significance at all. Amusing as it may seem, it is not worth a list of its own on Wikipedia. TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 15:39, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Summary Comment To me this is the deciding factor: It seems to me that people interested in the topic of crossword puzzles think this page should be kept. People who are not interested in crossword puzzles think this page should be deleted. Your personal interest should have no bearing on whether or not information is on Wikipedia. If Wikipedia were restricted to stuff that I personally was interested in, 99% of the content would be deleted, including 21 of the 24 similar pages listed above. I am well aware that we don't keep things on Wikipedia because other stuff exists, but it doesn't seem that anyone can make an argument for keeping those other pages which doesn't also apply here, or make an argument for deleting this page which does not also apply to all those other pages. If we delete this page, why are we keeping them? Just because they're older? For example, look at List of films featuring extraterrestrials - it's even more indiscriminate, with no information at all about the movies, yet it's been on Wikipedia for 5 years. RoyLeban (talk) 19:05, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You're certainly right in saying that it is not about personal interest. However, the reason I, and quite a few others voted Delete, was not because of personal interest but rather because this particular subject has apparently not generated any significant coverage. I think that Erik's comment above sums it up nicely. Jay _{Σεβαστός}^discuss 19:17, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I do crossword puzzles every day, yet think this list should be deleted. It's not about liking or not liking crosswords. As for why other lists are bad comparisons, see my reply to Gnat above. If we had a List of films featuring word jumbles survive an AFD, however, you might have a point, but otherwise, there's simply no comparison. postdlf (talk) 19:44, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I like this list, but it has no business being on Wikipedia. Crossword puzzles in films is too narrow of a topic to merit enough discussion and sources for a worthwhile list. Tavix | Talk 01:54, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - So it's pretty clear nobody's interested in actually addressing an important issue I raised. How can you argue against this page and for a page like List of films that most frequently use the word "fuck" or List of films with overtures or List of tsunami films or List of films featuring extraterrestrials or most of the rest? I do not see a single argument that has been made that could not be equally well applied to most of those other pages. Is everyone voting delete ready to vote delete on those pages too? And, either way, does anybody have an objection to including all those pages, plus maybe a hundred others, in this same discussion so there can be a real discussion about this topic? If we must protect Wikipedia at all costs from the oh-so-dangerous list of movies with crosswords, it seems we should have thousands of people weighing in, not tens. RoyLeban (talk) 11:26, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - You are wrong if you claim that nobody has addressed the differences between the present case and (some of) the others. Read the arguments again: they were mostly about whether or not the feature in question was likely to be a central, crucial element of the work. (Crosswords hardly ever are; extraterrestials and tsunamis almost always are.) I'm not saying that problems similar to those in the present case might not also apply in some other articles that are still around, but here's the second important point you need to accept: it is general practice on AFD discussions that these kinds of comparisons should simply be ignored, because it would otherwise lead to intractable debates spinning out of control, blocking decision making on each local case. That's what WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is about. We are here only to decide about the present article, in relation to general policy. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:06, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - What's wrong with that debate? I know all about WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Usually it's used as an excuse to remove something which is just like lots of other things. The four I just cited are completely indiscriminate. The List of films that most frequently use the word "fuck" is particularly egregious since it's filled with original research. Why is there no page for List of films that most frequently use the word "shit"? The way to build a great encyclopedia is to figure out how content fits, not jump to delete first. RoyLeban (talk) 21:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        If you honestly believe another list fails to meet inclusion criteria, then nominate it for deletion. If you think another list could be made, then make it. But unless you can point to one substantially similar to this (not just another list of [SOMETHING] in films, but something akin to crossword puzzles) the comparisons don't help this discussion at all, and you haven't said a single thing that actually supports this list. If no other film lists had yet been created, what would you say here about why this one should be kept rather than deleted, based on accepted community standards? postdlf (talk) 21:24, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, I honestly believe that multiple other lists cited above are significantly less appropriate for Wikipedia than this list. However, I also believe that the the notability test is fairly bogus and that many other rules are applied arbitrarily as a way to exclude content that people are not personally interested in, yet there's endless detail on "popular" topics like sports. I think there is much valuable information that is not on Wikipedia because people reject it arbitrarily. While this comment may not apply to anybody in this discussion, I often see a "delete first, ask questions later" mentality. I frequently go to Wikipedia expecting to find information and it's not there. I've found pages that were deleted as not notable when it was something I wanted information about! I could find the AfD but not the content as it had been lost to the sands of time. So, no, I'm not interested in movies with cursing (not even movies about cursing!), I think it's a waste of time, and I think it's way less interesting and notable than this topic, but obviously somebody thinks it's interesting, so I'm not going to nominate it for deletion. And, to pick another one at random, at one point, almost every movie had an overture. In the silent days, the piano player played music before the movie started. So how can you justify that one? But, clearly, somebody's interested, so I'm nominating that one either. I know this topic is interesting. I know that, in the crossword constructor community, this topic has come up many, many times over the years. Yes, it's a small community, but I bet it's bigger than the tsunami buff community. And Wikipedia is the perfect spot to collect this information. RoyLeban (talk) 02:43, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Indiscriminate. Only a very small number of these films appear to even have crosswords as central points; most probably use them for effect or as a prop. (Many of the items on the list do not really have adequate sourcing to tell.) I agree with Erik and Jay, above. OSborn^arf_contribs. 02:42, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
comment how do you decide what counts as featuring a crossword. If it is a significant part of the plot it makes sense but if you mean that the crossword is referred to, or worse still shown as on the paper. May be a more general starting point is needed such as games and puzzles in films with strict criteria.Tetron76 (talk) 18:18, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep not a trivial intersection, though the list needs a LOT of work. Specifically dropping down to those movies where crossword puzzles play a major role and and 1-3 sentence description of how the movie features crosswords. Hobit (talk) 00:44, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PROPOSAL: Ignoring the lengthy discussions, it seems that there are a fair number of people on both sides, close to evenly split (I have not counted). As I've said, I think this topic is appropriate for Wikipedia. Some delete votes seem concerned about the topic but more seem to be concerned about the list itself. I would prefer that this list be allowed to grow and flourish, but I recognize that the deletionists usually seem to win (they seem to have more time on their hands and I've already used more time on this than I have available). Therefore, I propose the following:
- Rename the page Puzzles in popular media and give it a chance, per Wikipedia policy
- Organize the page by media type, then puzzle types, so there would be a major category for Films and, if necessary, a minor category for crosswords.
- Clearly, WordPlay and All About Steve belong in the Films section. I have not given thought to which other films might belong there.
- Crosswords have played significant roles in a number of TV shows, though the only one I can think of off the top of my head is a Simpsons episode.
- There are plenty of puzzle-related novels which could be discussed in the Books section. There are perhaps half a dozen current authors producing such books.
- Move the remainder of the list to the Talk page for now to see if it can be made more encyclopedic or if another home could be found for it (for example, perhaps xwordinfo, which could then be referenced).
- Add links to the page from Puzzle, Crossword, etc. so it is more likely to be found and added to.

RoyLeban (talk) 02:43, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - indiscriminate collection, links films by a totally insignificant criterion. Yaksar (let's chat) 05:54, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, indiscriminate list, non-notable criterion for inclusion. The concept of a film featuring a crossword puzzle is not notable, in the sense that it has not been the subject of substantial coverage in reliable sources. See WP:LC items 1-4, 6, 8, 10, and 11. Stifle (talk) 21:42, 5 March 2011 (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.