Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of counterculture 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. The debate is divided, and some promise of work is offered. I find the arguments relating to "indiscriminacy" a little too sweeping, after all it would hope to discriminate between those that are and are not 'counter-culture'. I would think also that a poor definition is not a WP:NPOV issue but more a WP:NOR one. Someone might ping W.marsh... -Splash - tk 17:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

List of counterculture films

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This article attempts to comprehensively list counterculture films. However the criteria for something being labelled a "counterculture film" is too subjective. There is no industry standard for labelling a film as a counterculture film and the list makes no attempt to even verify that any or all of these films are considered such. Therefore since the list inclusion is based in large part on editorial opinion the list article should be deleted as having POV issues in its list criteria. Note - this should not become a category, either, as it would suffer the same problems as a category. Dugwiki 16:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - subjective and indiscriminate list. As the nominator points out, "counterculture" is not a clearly defined term; hence potential issues with WP:NPOV. Also violates WP:ATT due to lack of sources. Wal  ton  Vivat Regina!  16:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep but reference with a vengence. Everythingn should be sourced to published film critics saying the film is a counterculture film. No reason to believe that can't be done, so article needs improvement, not deletion. I will take a stab at it when I am on my regular computer tonight which actually has two mouse buttons. How do people do real work on Macs? (that was sarcastic). --W.marsh 17:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll keep an open mind on your changes, W, but I should mention that I'm skeptical this addresses the problem. The reason is that just as individual editors have their own opinions on when something is "counterculture" so do individual film critics.  So simply presenting a single critic who says a film is "counterculture" wouldn't actually verify that it is considered so by the film industry as a whole. Dugwiki 17:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, keep in mind the other issue that even if you managed to find great references for individual films currently on the list, there is nothing preventing other editors from adding their own films to the list as well. This could be a case where you'll end up with maintainence problems having to continually remove inappropriate or unreferenced entries. Dugwiki 17:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Some lists are very difficult to maintain... but not impossible. I realize a lot of people don't want to keep around an article that isn't be properly maintained at the moment, but for me that's not a reason to delete. --W.marsh 18:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, the subjective criteria is the main deletion reason. The liklihood of the editors making inappropriate additions just exacerbates the problem. Dugwiki 18:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete as an indiscriminate list and failing WP:NOT. As stated above the primary inclusion criteria is "countercultural" which is rather subjective, and subjective criteria are pretty much indiscriminate by nature.  A r k y a n  &#149; (talk) 19:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - this list is impossible to objectively catalog, and fails WP:NOT. Sorry, but you're never going to get a clear definition of what is a "counterculture film" that isn't horrifically broad, or entirely contentious.  --Haemo 00:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete counter whose culture? NPOV impossibility. Carlossuarez46 17:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and improve. I disagree that NPOV is impossible. It needs some clear-cut criteria, however. &mdash; RJH (talk) 17:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. If the best argument is that it fails WP:NOT (but no one has yet to explain why it fails WP:NOT) and that counterculture is too difficult to define and thus cannot have a WP:NPOV, then we should absolutely keep the article. Otherwise, we might as well delete the entire counterculture article itself, as obviously it can't keep a neutral point of view as well. If one is too subjective then by proxy its subarticle must be too. If, however, we believe that we should keep the counterculture article for the same reasons why we are deleting this article, then we should rethink our rationale for deleting this article. I'm neutral on the subject as of now, but from the way this discussion is going, I'm leaning towards keep. Rockstar915 04:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename to List of counterculture films of the 1960s (or something like that), cut down dramatically and "reference with a vengeance" as suggested earlier. While there is no consensus on what counterculture means today, the Counterculture of the 1960s is well-defined. The corresponding group of films is also fairly well defined at least as much as, say, Italian neorealism. Of course, referencing shouldn't be referencing by finding one film buff who says "this was counterculture" but referencing using history of cinema books or similar wide encompassing works that study counterculture of that period. Pascal.Tesson 19:03, 6 April 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.