Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of romance 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 keep. postdlf (talk) 02:15, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of romance films[edit]

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

Fails WP:LISTCRITERIA, WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:OR. Narky Blert (talk) 20:46, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question is there something about this list in particular that makes it worth deleting, or are lists of films by genre in general arbitrary in your view (perhaps better handled by categories)? I ask because there are several such lists gathered at Template:Lists of films by genre and I'm wondering if it would be inconsistent to delete just one. On the other hand, if you wanted to delete all of them that seems like a bigger change than a single AfD could reasonably cover, so perhaps an RfC would be a better way to go. Mortee (talk) 22:03, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I may have opened a can of worms here. I nominated this article only because I fell across it, as containing an ambiguous link to a DAB page. (1) I'm a big fan of categories: if an article contains persuasive evidence that it belongs in a category, well so it should be. (2) I am no a fan at all of open-ended lists, especially ones with poor WP:LISTCRITERIA. They are open to abuse. Entries in them are of four kinds. (a) Bluelinks, all well and good. (b) Redlinks, where it looks like someone should write the article. (So, why not do so now, rather than add cruft to a list article? (c) Redlinks, where a search seems to show that the topic is not notable. (Those can be difficult. Proving that an unwritten article is about a non-notable subject is hard work.) (d) Bluelinks to DAB pages. Those combine the problems of (b) and (c). Narky Blert (talk) 00:14, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 03:43, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per WP:CLT; however, it probably would need to be improved substantially. ansh 666 21:54, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NOTESAL because it is incredibly easy to find lists of romance films in secondary sources that can be pulled together for Wikipedia's list (at minimum) and because there is precedent on Wikipedia to have lists of films under a particular genre. In addition, WP:CLT says that categories and lists are not mutually exclusive. If anything, a list allows for sharing of additional detail, such as release year, country or countries, or even synopses so readers can decide if a film is worth reading about in-depth. If an article has problems, then it should be edited to be without problems. For example, you can just go ahead and remove the red links. Then you can find a secondary source listing romance films and see about adding films to this list or adding the reference to a film that is already on the list. (That way we don't have to engage in deleting something and re-adding it.) Can you do this instead of pushing for deletion? I'll help implement a list source into this list. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:48, 6 April 2017 (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.