Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Category III 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. Numerically there is only a small majority for keep, but improvement and re-focussing of the article during the debate have made some of the initial objections less compelling. I suggest a change of name to "List of Hong Kong Category III films". JohnCD (talk) 21:51, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

List of Category III films

 * – ( View AfD View log )

There are lots of notable Category III films in the world and including all will result in a very long list. Also, different countries may have different definitions of Category III.  Kayau  Voting  IS   evil 13:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC) ....and it's not likely that we would. First, lists of films for general audiences-- children, those that carry a parental advisory, and those where a minor cannot attend without accompaniment-- are so large that they haven't permitted because of the impracticality. Hence, we have no list of American PG-rated films or G-rated films and it's not even a very good category. Second, relatively few notable (those that have an article here) films get the most restrictive "adults only" rating. Mandsford 13:41, 15 January 2011 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:56, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete As far as I can make out, Category III films is used only in Hong Kong and has no other significance. Severe danger of opening floodgates to lists of every category in every jurisdiction.... Emeraude (talk) 13:48, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I added a bullet before your comment. Hope you don't mind.  Kayau  Voting  IS   evil 14:04, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Some explanation is in order here, since it's not clear from the article. "Category III" redirects to Hong Kong motion picture rating system, and refers to a film to which nobody under the age of 18 is admitted.  We have a List of NC-17 rated films that is primarily limited to those films (there are not that many) deemed notable enough for a Wikipeida article, and includes sourcing and information about why the film got that rating.  This sources to imdb.com, which some people don't consider reliable.  We have relatively few contributions about culture in the rest of the world, although entertainment-heavy Wikipedia has no small amount of film and TV information from the U.S., the U.K., Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.  While I appreciate the  concern about setting a precedent for "lists of every category in every jurisdiction" (i.e., list of American westerns with a man with an eyepatch), I think we do need to have limited lists of films produced in other jurisdictions. Mandsford 20:20, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep A deletion based upon worries over something that might or might not happen in the future is a reason to address those issues if or when they occur. But as Emeraude has pointed out that this list aplies only to whatever notable films might be rated this way in Hong Kong, and that such a list does not apply to all such similar films elsewhere "in the world", I find myself in agreement with User:Mandsford and established precedent.   Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 03:51, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * So we could have articles called List of Category U films, List of Category PG films, List of Category 12A films, List of Category 18 films and List of Category R18 films, just covering UK films. And to be truly all-encompassing, we could also have List of Category U films, List of Category AA films, List of Category 15 films, List of Category H films to cover obsolete UK ratings. And, of course, different categories when films are released on video in the UK. And then repeat all of this for the USA. And Ireland. And Canada. And Australia. And France. And Spain. And...... Emeraude (talk) 11:45, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:WAX.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 18:38, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - as a a red- and non- link farm. Only source is IMDB which does cannot establish notability (WP:NFILM). In essence, this is a violation of WP:NOTDIR.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 14:08, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

*Delete whoever came up with this list also forgot to account for the numerous Western "Cat III" films and not all of these are erotic films. Also this list is like a separate list for British 18 certificate and American NC-17 films, which there is far too many to list. Donnie Park (talk) 22:08, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * weak keep - with the condition that it's de-redlinked and better sourced - and given some explanation of the significance of the ratings that were notable. Skier Dude  ( talk ) 08:00, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - I just did some work on the article and I realize that this article can become a good one. The introduction of the Hong Kong motion picture rating system in 1988 was followed by an abundance of exploitation films, which played a non negligible role in the history of Hong Kong cinema. Good lists and articles about this genre are hard to find on the internet, and this is a chance to have such a reference here. Of course the article needs a lot of work and I would suggest to only keep the films made in Hong Kong (ie remove the Japanese and Korean films), and turn the article into something like "List of Hong Kong Category III films". olivier (talk) 19:23, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Considering the edits have now been made. Donnie Park (talk) 21:31, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment I have made very substantial changes to the original article. The article as it is today is very different from the version which was nominated for deletion. I have restricted the focus of the article to films produced in Hong Kong. I have also sorted the films by period. A lot can be added about the different periods and the major role played by Category III films in Hong Kong in the 1990s. It is now about a slice of history of the Hong Kong film industry, not about a quite useless list of thousands of films deemed not suitable for minors in a specific juridiction. olivier (talk) 20:15, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


 * But this amounts basically to adding a short intro and does not address the objections raised above that the article is nothing but a list of no value. Emeraude (talk) 14:11, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If you compare the original version and the current one, you will notice the difference. More than what you are implying. Yes there is an intro now and there was none before. Can the article be improved? Certainly. Is the need for improvement in itself a reason for deleting it? Surely not. The question of the value or lack thereof of such a list is debatable. I do not see much argument supporting the fact that the current list has "no value" beside the statement itself. olivier (talk) 19:16, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * To clarify: the initial list contained many films from Japan. They appear more clearly in this version. The current version of the list has only the Hong Kong films. olivier (talk) 19:31, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Categorify. Seems like an obvious middle road solution for it to be a category instead of a list. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:46, 30 January 2011 (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.