Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fish out of water comedy film


 * 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. Core desat 05:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Fish out of water comedy film

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

An indiscriminate list of movies. Somewhat of a cross between an essay and a list. seems like an endless list of strange categories. Ridernyc 00:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete What do Mrs. Doubtfire, Peggy Sue Got Married, Modern Times, The Gods Must Be Crazy and Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope have in common? They're on this list! This is an inherently indiscriminate list based on original research. szyslak  00:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Weakish Delete Weakish only because I am so perplexed by the article that it occurs to me that perhaps I'm missing something here. If complete, this would list nearly every comedy film ever made. Weird list. faithless   (speak)  00:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * correction it would list every film ever made. ET and Star Wars are on the list.Ridernyc 01:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-GB%3Aofficial&hs=GjC&q=%22Fish+out+of+water+comedy+film%22&btnG=Search&meta= so it's probably safe to say this fails the search engine test. Interesting nonetheless, but WP:ILIKEIT is not an argument to keep it. However, I have no prejudice against userfying the article if the result of the debate is to delete. It is an indiscriminate list lacking third-party sourcing, and reliable sources for that matter. Such an essay on this is (presumably) better off transwikied to Wikibooks as a textbook, rather than here. That's my 0.02 cents on it. --Solumeiras talk 10:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete for the sole fact it has SWE4 on it. This proves how much ORy it is, as Ep IV isn't comedic at all. Will (talk) 00:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * delete as WP:OR. The concept of "fish out of water" as comedy would be something you'd write into an article on Theory of Comedy, maybe: but this seems not just an indiscriminate list, but also purely OR. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 01:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Precisely, faithless. I write comedy scripts (not yet well enough, alas) and fish out of water is pretty much the premise for most if not all comedy -- or drama for that matter. Shawn in Montreal 01:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as WP:OR (though it's WP:INTERESTING). JJL 02:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:OR. Hal peridol 02:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete OR and POV. Who gets to define this concept? What are the objective criteria?Doczilla 07:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete This fails No original research and there are no objective criteria to define it. There are currently no third-party sources that assert that this exists as a genre, and nothing verifiable. Few google hits besides the Wikipedia page:
 * Keep in order to shut up anyone who wants to start crying "snowball". You probably should userfy this one, since it appears the result will be to delete.  The theme of the "fish out of water" is a common one, not just in film, but in literature (e.g., Mark Twain's The Prince and the Pauper).  Everyone's yelling "original research" at ya, and at the moment, they're correct.  However, there are plenty of sources you can refer to in order to supplement your own recognition of a f.o.o.w. theme.  Copy this to your user page, then start by googling "fish out of water" (including books and magazine articles).  Bring it back up when you're confident that it's got the necessary underpinning.  You've got the makings of a good article.  Mandsford 12:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete or userfy, but allow recreation. I agree with Mandsford that the trope is notable, but the division into categories and the specific examples do seem to be unsalvageable original research, and the article will probably need rewriting from scratch. EALacey 17:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, clearly OR. Doctorfluffy 04:28, 3 November 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.