Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of accolades received by Sense and Sensibility (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   keep. WP:SNOW: Lacking a stated policy-based rationale for deletion, and with the level of keep support present, there is no foreseeable chance that this will close delete. Let's move along. joe deckertalk to me 05:59, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

List of accolades received by Sense and Sensibility (film)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Yes, it's under construction, but let's nip this in the bud. There's absolutely no reason why this film, unlike any other film, should have an "accolades" article as a seperate article. I don't think any film needs this disctinction. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 21:42, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Have you seen the award list at Sense and Sensibility (film)? It's huge. I was about to begin expanding the film article, but realized the awards section was too unwieldy not to place in a list. It received 7 Oscar noms, 12 BAFTAs noms, and I'm just getting started.  R uby2010   comment!  21:48, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, I intend to take this article to FL when finished, so it won't remain a stub very long at all, if that happened to be one of your concerns.  R uby2010   comment!  21:53, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Really? One minute after creation? That's just uncalled for. And by the way, other critically acclaimed films have lists like these. See for example List of accolades received by Avatar. There's even a whole category: Category:Lists of accolades by film. Theleftorium (talk) 21:48, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * How does it matter how long ago it was created? It's not the content, it's the very idea of such an article.  And WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.  The Mark of the Beast (talk) 21:51, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Seriously, don't "WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS" me. I'm replying to your comment that said "unlike any other film", which was not true. Theleftorium (talk) 21:56, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 22:15, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 22:15, 13 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. While it's less of a nuisance in the main article than the longer accolades lists for other films, it's still long enough to justify a subpage. As Theleftorium noted, the statement in the deletion rationale that no other film has such a subpage is incorrect. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 22:23, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep This really shouldn't have been AfD'd a minute after it was created (with an "under expansion" tag, to boot!). Perhaps it would be a candidate for future merger if it wouldn't be very detailed, but judging from the author's other work this has real potential to become a FL.  Them From  Space  22:27, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Author's justification (that the parent article is too long), not to mention their previous work (e.g. List of accolades received by The Young Victoria), makes this article perfectly valid and worthy of becoming featured content in the future. —Yk Yk Yk  talk ~ contrib 23:26, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep This deletion nomination is preposterous (not to mention slightly rude, putting it on right at the start of creation). Article is obviously deserved of a list and has the potential to, with work, become featured. Atomician (talk) 00:23, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Snow Keep and close. Meets WP:SAL, WP:LISTPURP, andd WP:LOW. Sense and Sensibility is a notable film.  While a list of accolades are just fine for a film article, just as it is in Gone with the Wind (film), that the author felt the section overburdened the parent film article per WP:SPINOUT and began a seperate accolade list is just fine.  It's the way we do such things, and we do not "nip" improvements in the bud simply because they are ongoing. It would have behooved the nominator to have let author User:Ruby2010 continue work on this list article for this notable topic. I would suggest he remember WP:WIP.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 02:39, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I see nothing wrong with AFD'ing an article immediately after creation, provided the rationale is about the whole concept of the article, not the content. Isn't it better to let potential editors know right away that WP would prefer to have them focus their attention elsewhere, rather than tear something down after considerable effort has been put into it?  (To be clear, I am not writing this in support of actual deletion of this article, only of the process and timing.) Matchups 03:07, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Not especially because it's essentially impossible to judge an article's worth without first having let the editor complete it. It's like tearing down a building when the builders have just started making it saying it's not worth building, you can only tell once it's done whether it will turn out to look good or be good. Atomician (talk) 03:10, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep as no policy has been cited by the nom.  Lugnuts  (talk) 08:06, 14 August 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.