Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of action films: 1970s


 * 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 things are near equal, and If I were goinge purely on numbers I'd clsoe as no consensus. But the delete argemetns are a combination of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and the assertion that having a category would be better. But such lits are clearly supported by guideline pages linked by those favoring keep, and the maintenence argumetn would be stronger in the presence of evidence that maintenence had in fact failed. Cats take maintenence too, if not quite so much. DES (talk) 04:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

List of action films: 1970s

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Yes, I realize this article is tagged with underconstruction, but this list is a disaster waiting to happen. "Action film" is purely OR, and the list itself will become horribly unmanageable.

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 02:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd argue that this list is useful and encyclopedic. The average user using wikipedia doesn't browse through cats, and I'm actually trying to create a list that will clean-up and give useful information from the previous List of action films page. Plus, as those pages go, it will eventually be far far to large. That is my statement for keeping them. Andrzejbanas 02:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

comment The lists if allowed to be completed serve a much greater purpose than categories - they will provide an overview of specific genre and therefore become encyclopedic. ♦ Dr. Blofeld ♦ "Expecting you?" Contribs 13:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete all. Listcruft, highly subject to opinion (what constitutes an action film), nearly impossible to manage accurately. This is why we have categories. Readers will find the cats if they are linked from a main page such as Action film, or a redirect could do the job. Realkyhick 02:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete all per Realkyhick. WP:NOT IMDB. eaolson 02:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete all, for one "Action films" is subjective and WP:OR. What about comedy/action?  And so forth.  Secondly, the fact that some users do not know about categories doesn't mean we should start doubling all of them up with articles.  Wikipedia is not a directory of arbitrarily associated stuff.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 04:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete all This list is unmanageable.  Why not add all the B movies and independent "action movies" from those time frames? Corpx 05:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Replace with a category if the genre can be cited from a reliable source Corpx 14:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Strong keep what are you doing? List of action films already existed for many years -the creator is taking it to the next level by formatting it into encyclopedic lists which provide information. Action as a genre is pretty defined -POV? I don't think so. PLease give these lists time to develop ♦ Dr. Blofeld ♦  "Expecting you?" Contribs 10:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Shoot them! Blow them up good! Zap! Pow! per nom. Forbidden Planet is listed as a 50s action flick?!? Can Shakespeare in Love be far behind? Clarityfiend 06:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep: again, this is different then cats. If you don't agree with a film being marked by a genre like action, then it can be removed. I think that science fiction film mentioned above was added due to it having sci-fi action tagged to it, with laser guns and what not. This list is important as it can list films that aren't on wikipedia, for articles that can be created as well. That is why I suggest it stays kept, it had different uses then simply the Category command and gives more information. Andrzejbanas 15:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Just pointing out that it's difficult to decide what is or isn't an action film. Clarityfiend 17:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Stop right there Lets first have a good look. First off all, lists and categories have different purposes and the existence of one is never a good argument for deleting the other (see also Categories, lists, and series boxes). Second, for those who state that "Action films" is subjective, we already have Category:Action films, which suffers from the exact same problem. Just like a movie can be removed from a category, it can be removed from a list, no problem there. Third, comments like "Shoot them! Blow them up good!", although meant funny, are actually quite untactful considering the well meant effort someone clearly has been putting in these lists. Did anyone ever think of contacting the orginal author rather than listing it them here at AfD within minutes after they were created? Although I am not yet convinced that we either do or do not need these lists, I have seen no good, decent argument for deleting them up to this point. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 20:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. How about Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information? IMDb lists 22,943 films in the action genre. And as for "Shoot them! Blow them up good!", ok, so it wasn't especially funny, but we're not dealing with some sacred topic that must be approached with kid gloves. Any article that includes a mention of Battlefield Earth and The Adventures of Pluto Nash should expect to attract a bit of ridicule. Clarityfiend 22:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" is mainly referring to whether or not to include articles on specific topics. Lists are a way of navigating through these articles, just like categories. As we are trying to write an encyclopedia for everybody here (not just for ourselves), lists like these serve a purpose, because they are considered easier to navigate than categories by many people. And no, this is not a sacred topic, but from the way the articles were started it was obvious the editor who started them was willing to spent time to make them into something useful, which at the very least earns him the right to be treated respectfully. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 06:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep It has never been the case that we delete articles that can be improved instead of improving them. At least, it is not supposed to be the case, but these AfDs, & the arguments being used to justify them, look very much like an attempt to do just that. DGG (talk) 00:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep This must be the 200th list deletion debate in the last week. I saw about 20 in the prod category earlier - mostly established lists. Does anyone actually read WP:LIST? Or glance at Featured lists? Lists can contain information apart from the name of the article, lists can be used to see changes without having every single article on your watchlist (click related changes on the sidebar), lists can be used to keep a record of redlinks for articles that need to be created. Lastly lists and categories are indexes and they are complementary - not exclusive of each other. Both can be used to navigate wikipedia and both have advantages and disadvantages. Frankly, the reasons for this nomination are just not valid. "...a disaster waiting to happen" is not a reason for deletion (and is pure emotive POV)."Action film" is purely OR" is just inaccurate - the categorisation "Action film" is widely used and recognized in the film industry, in film reference books and ironically in Wikipedia categories as well. finally, "will become horribly unmanageable" is more emotive POV, crystal ballery and ironic considering these articles were created to help manage an unwieldy list. For those voting delete (or nominating articles for deletion because they have 'list' in the name) please read Categories, lists, and series boxes to understand how each of these things are valuable components of wikipedia - being a list is not a reason for deletion - current fashion notwithstanding. To borrow a phrase from another editor in a recent debate "How can we build an encyclopedia if we keep deleting the indexes?" Paxse 14:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Merged - I've merged the loose lists onto the main page and with the details is encyclopedic and useful . Now surely you won't delete this after the effort of many ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦  "Expecting you?"   Contribs 21:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment; note that amount of work is unrelated to keeping an article or not&mdash; it's all about what an encyclopedia is and is not, notability and verifiability. Those lists are not verifiable (who decides if x is an action film or not), not notable (unless the action-ness of movies per decade is discussed in an independent, reliable source as a topic and, ultimately, just not encyclopedic.  There is something to be said for the category, but a list article?  Not.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 22:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - I am gonna give this one the benefit of the doubt for now, I wanna see how these lists develop in time. For my objections against the reasoning supplied for deletion, see my comment above. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 08:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete, and move relevant bits to WP Films for utility in identifying missing films. I am tired of constantly seeing more and more of these articles which are transparently and precisely what list articles are NOT supposed to be. Wikipedia is not a database. (Okay, it's run on one, but the articles aren't one in and of themselves.) The common cry I keep on hearing is: "but I can't track category changes!". Yes, and this is a problem. But creating a completely unmanageable page is not the answer either. Please respect MOS instead of trying to wikilawyer around it. Girolamo Savonarola 18:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC) I still have many reservations, but I think I'd actually rather stay on the sidelines for now and wait for a guideline debate instead... Girolamo Savonarola 18:45, 25 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.