Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of computer-related 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 No consensus. Rlevse 22:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

List of computer-related films

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete - Wikipedia is not a repository of loosely-associated topics. That a film features computers is nowhere near sufficient to justify this article. There is also no clear definition as to what constitutes being "computer-related." Otto4711 02:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions.   -- SkierRMH 22:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions.   -- SkierRMH 22:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete This is what categories are for.--Dacium 04:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Otto4711. The definition of "computer-related film", especially these days, is vague. JuJube 07:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep From WP:LIST: "The list may be a valuable information source. This is particularly the case for a structured list. Examples would include lists organized chronologically, grouped by theme, or annotated lists." I agree the definition should be tightened, but the films included show that sensible criteria are being employed. Note that this list is further broken down by type, so use of categories would not be appropriate. Films are a useful source for understanding society's changing attitude toward computers.--agr 12:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak delete based on the ambiguity of "computer-related". That definition is a little too broad and undefined to make the list meaningful.  Arkyan 18:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Far too broad and vague, both in terms of its title and the description in the article. WP:LIST is not policy, and it's more of a style-guide than anything. It cannot trump WP:NOT, which is policy. Agent 86 19:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. All of the movies in this list deal specifically with computers, computer programs, etc.  These aren't films in which a computer appears on-screen somewhere in the background for a second.  This could serve as the basis for an article on films revolving around computer technology (or in which such technology is a major part of the plot). -- Black Falcon 20:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - I've edited the intro to define the list as including "... movies where activities involving computers play a central role in the development of the plot." If that is not clear enough, I am open to suggestions. The article's name is easily changed as well. --agr 21:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * delete per nom. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 21:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Clearly defined list. -- Stbalbach 04:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Does need further expansion and possibly focus on the detail of how the computer-related activities affect the film. --Nehrams2020 05:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, as long as computers play a central role in the film. Else cleanup. Hoverfish Talk 07:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as I agree with all the reasons to keep given so far, and I don't agree that [WP:NOT#DIR|Wikipedia is not a repository of loosely-associated topics]] was applied properly as a reason to AfD in the first place. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 18:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - per WP:LIST: information and navigation. Featuring computer related material is sufficient commonality. - Peregrine Fisher 02:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. This seems to be heading for a keep, but I cannot really see the valid distinction between this and other "List of Films involving X, Y or Z" which seem to be heading more readily for deletion. Computers play a central role in our everyday lives these days, whether real or apparent, unlike 20 years ago. By the same token, computers are frequently involved in the plot of films. Films remain "modern" by becoming futuristic. The protagonist and villain in The Terminator series are cyborgs. Gone are the Bank heists by artillery (replaced by cybercrime), break-ins (now replaced by hacking), facial recognition software and wiretapping (replacing dumb security guards' surveillance), communications are now largely electronic (email, chat, blog). I think that arguably, a film such as "You've Got Mail" would also qualify, because there's no email without computers; "Entrapment" as it involves hacking into the computer security at the Petronas Tower.... Defined any more precisely, the list would be caught by "loose association". Ohconfucius 09:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I think "play a central role in the development of the plot" is pretty tight. Cyborgs are not computers. A movie about a bank heist where the robbers have to get past a computerized security system would not qualify as it is incidental to the plot. I think "You got mail" belongs on this list as it deals with the impact of anonymous e-mail on the protagonist's lives.--agr 12:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that the criteria for inclusion are tight, not loose. There are a lot of things that play a role in everyday life (cars, computers, politics, romance, weather) but it is also quite possible to have a film focused on one of these things as a main theme. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 00:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I still maintain that the technology is used in most cases just to set the modern or futuristic context, and is not central to the plot in but a few cases. Let's take the Matrix series, which are arguably about political freedom. The Matrix is a substitute for "Big Brother" in 1984 - the computer therein defines the context because the explosive power of computers was not imaginable by Orwell when he wrote his book. A. I. is a modern-day Pinocchio, and is not really about computers at all, but about human adoptions/emotions, and the dilemma which is posed when a supposedly inanimate object becomes a sentient being. By my recollection, the central subjects of Jurassic Park are genetic engineered dinosaurs, with computers being only a tool in that show, a bit like the computerized security system bank heisters have to get past. I think we may be caught in a debate where it is still possible to confuse the medium with the central subject. Either that, or there may still be some debate as to whether all the films included actually belong on the list. Ohconfucius 02:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't follow your reasoning. Why would the political symbolic elements of a film like The Matrix totally negate its strong focus on technology? That would be like arguing that Teen Wolf doesn't really count as a werewolf film because it really symbolizes puberty. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 04:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Au contraire, mon ami. It's the other way around: Why would the setting and context of a film like The Matrix totally negate its central theme, which is political freedom? What about the other films I named as examples? I contend that the problem lies not within the Matrix films, but the whold scope of this list, IMHO. Ohconfucius 06:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Plot devices in most fiction are employed to create situations where basic human conditions are explored. Jurassic Park is not about dinosaurs, it's about hubris and greed. It's central subjects are people. Moby Dick is not about whales. Still plot devices are important and it is interesting and appropriate to use them to group fictional works. --agr 11:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * To Ohconfucius: I'm not saying that The Matrix couldn't belong on a list of political films too. I'm just saying that having a symbolic theme (politics) doesn't negate the fact that there's a really strong focus on technology throughout the film. In other words, symbolic plot elements are not the only reason to group similar films together. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 00:36, 1 March 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.