Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die


 * 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 the article, delete the copyvio list.  Sala Skan  (Review me) 19:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Copyright violation. A stub about the book is borderline notable, but repeating its contents is a copyvio. The JPS talk to me  18:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete despite lots of lists (top number N of thing Y) being flagged as copyvio, the wikimedia folks have never given a definitive call whether they are. Ultimately, it's not encyclopedic so it ought to go. Carlossuarez46 18:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Listing the films categorized by decade is definitely a WP:COPY violation, so I have reverted to the last revision that just barely meets fair use guidelines. Groupthink 21:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep but remove film list. Notable book, but it's not necessary to list out all of the films that the book reviews. Groupthink 21:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I thought about whether the book was notable, the author's redlink notwithstanding, and did a quick check of Amazon to see where it ranked in sales there: 7,283rd. I don't think we have a magical cut-off; but being 7283rd - even out of a few million books ever written - does not establish notability.  Is there more? Carlossuarez46 21:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, but the list must go as a copyright violation. Corvus cornix 21:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, but I agree with Groupthink, in some circumstances, I don't think that the book is very notable but also we do not list the content of books on wikipedia, when you look at an article on a book it doesn't list all the content or the index of the book. -- ♫Twinkler4♫   (Talk to me!)  23:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep but remove the list. Based on a Google news search, it seems like the book was reviewed by a number of newspapers/magazines/etc. A 7,283rd ranking on Amazon isn't too shabby -- that's a lot better than any version of Germinal, for example -- and Wikipedia is not paper. Zagalejo 00:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Links to some of these reviews in the article might sway it. The JPS talk to me  11:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that Amazon sales rankings are only useful in measuring the sales of recent books, where it is but one data point - kind of a sanity check. But without WP:RSes citing this as a notable book, the article sans the list really doesn't demonstrate notability. Perhaps a mention of who the "film critics" were (Shalitt, Ropers & Ebert, Spielberg, Lucas, Polanski, someone we've heard of?) who leant their names and advice to the book would assist, as anyone can be a film critic. Carlossuarez46 16:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Here are four multi-paragraph book reviews I've found after a quick Factiva search. Each comes from a different continent. If I have to, I can list many more reviews.
 * Bernard Trink. "As Good as They Come." Bangkok Post. 20 April 2007. R11.
 * Ron Rollins. "Read the book then see the movies." Dayton Daily News. 30 January 2005. F1.
 * Abigail Wild. "1001 ways to give cinema new scope." The Herald. 12 November 2003. 13.
 * Peter Haran. "The must-see movies of all time." Sunday Mail. 23 May 2004. 84.
 * I'd also like to point out that, according to the 10 April 2004 issue of The Daily Telegraph, this book was once the #2 best-selling non-fiction book in Australia (2nd to Eats, Shoots and Leaves). I'm not sure if any of the figures you mentioned contributed to the book, as I don't own the book myself. Based on my searches, however, I've learned that the critics include Adrian Martin, Jonathan Rosenbaum, Richard Pena, David Stratton, and  Margaret Pomeranz, all of whom seem fairly significant. Zagalejo 19:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Could you please provide a link to that issue of the Daily Telegraph? This book is one in a series of 1001...'s produced by a company called Quarto and its imprint (label) Quintet. As with the "for Dummies" and the "Complete idiot" books, by far greater sellers and better known, a single article of all the various titles is probably the right way to go; like ...for Dummies or The Complete Idiot's Guide to..., rather than for each book (which here could be little more than a stub without the list). Note: the List of ...for Dummies books was deleted as a result of this discussion. So delete is still in order here. Carlossuarez46 21:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I can't provide a link to that specific article, since I accessed it with Factiva through my university library. I can give you this sample of an article, which, I believe, shows that the book was ranked #7 overall in Australia (fiction and non-fiction). As far as I know, we don't have an article on the "1,001..." series (all I've found are individual articles, like 1,000 Places to See Before You Die.) I'd support a merge to an article on the Quarto series if we had one, but we don't, so I'm still !voting to keep for right now. Zagalejo 23:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment. The article need not be deleted, but the list is a copyright infringement.  There is non-infringing content in the page history possibly worth saving.  The infringing material needs to be removed from accessible history.  --SmokeyJoe 01:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Trivial pop culture book of transitory appeal. Without the complete list the article is of no value to anyone. With the list it is a copyright violation. Hawkestone 11:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - ditto. --Storm Rider (talk) 04:56, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - I put up the page originally. I realise Wikipedia is a universal resource, but the book is extra-notable in Australia, featuring input from many of the nation's top critics such as David Stratton, our version of Roger Ebert, and released with a lot of publicity by our public broadcaster the Australian Broadcasting Corporation; Zagalejo put it better than I did. Whether you believe it to be trivial or not is meaningless, and assuming it doesn't contravene any copyright policies there is absolutely no reason why it should be deleted. I honestly don't know why it was even taken to the AfD page; the editor who picked up on the copyright violation should have just edited the page themselves and that would've been the end of it. Cheers, Rothery 11:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC).
 * It's been about a week now and the article does not reflect the claims to notability that this page asserts. Where are the secondary sources? Where is the proof that it received attention, etc.? As it is, this is a useless stub. So what if Ebert contributed? The JPS talk to me  11:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Um, no one said that Ebert contributed. I'll add a couple of references to the article, though. Zagalejo 18:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - I think Rothery has made his case. Brianhe 19:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 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.