Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of trains in 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 of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 04:47, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of trains in films[edit]

A woefully incomplete list of films and TV shows which feature trains. Could be massive and isn't doing much that couldn't be done more efficiently by way of a category tree. Delete kingboyk 09:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This page has attracted quite a number of additional entries from other users, which in my opinion makes it worth having. I am therefore in favour of keeping it. Tabletop 09:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Royboycrashfan 09:30, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
At the moment this is more of a list of films with trains. I would support keeping if it was brought down to films in which trains played a significant role like Runaway Train, otherwise delete as unmaintainable. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:43, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but it desperately needs a rename. This isn't a List of trains in films - it's a List of films featuring trains! Grutness...wha? 11:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, low encyclopedical value but high cost to maintain.

A quote from Uncyclopedia [1]: "[Wikipedia] is actually database including such things as: lists of trains, Mortal Kombat characters, one-time villains from Mario games, road intersections, boring suburban schools, garage bands, cats, ..."

Pavel Vozenilek 17:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, all train fans should be able to find Night Mail. On the other hand, Category:Films featuring trains is not such a great idea IMO. Kappa 01:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a rename and a bit of cleaning would be the best outcome? --kingboyk 01:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Wikipedia is not a database. Appears to be an almost unlimited list, created just for the sake of having such a list, i.e. listcruft. Stifle 11:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- So there is no imaginable value for readers in being able to find any examples of films with trains in and the contributors who created this list and/or support its inclusion are essential just being self-indulgent? Kappa 13:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes. Zunaid 15:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep train nerds live off this kind of thing. Just because you feel its unimportant doesn't mean that it isn't of the greatest importance to other people.--Pypex 15:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I absolutely didn't say it isn't important or that I'm not interested! It was an editorial nomination that the list didn't meet it's billing and as billed could get very, very long. I'm waiting now for someone to propose a move that can be agreed on and that the nomination will inspire some editors to make the list more focussed and improve it. If other editors think it can't be improved and is too hard to maintain, there will be delete concensus instead. That's how AFD works. (I'm grateful to Kappa too for reminding me about Night Mail - too bad it's 20 quid on DVD :( ) --kingboyk 15:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete as pointless listcruft per Stifle. Zunaid 15:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. What's the problem? Grue 14:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 15:30, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's important that this kind of article is deleted because otherwise Wiki will be open to all manner of databases and anorak tendencies. Some films have trains at the very core of their narrative - L'Homme du train, Strangers on a Train etc - but on the whole this kind of listcruft is an open-ended project with little chance of a credible end product. Delete this article before any further advances are made into the world of non-notable lists. doktorb | words 15:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Misnamed and overly broad article; WP is not a list of links (even internal ones). If this is notable info (I don't know that it is), just make it a category. -- Karnesky 22:32, 10 February 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.