Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cult classics


 * 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 delete.  Singu larity  07:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

List of cult classics

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This article is an indiscriminate collection of information as it has no inclusion criteria. It could also be considered a loosely-associated list and a collection of internal links. This list could never really be maintained because inclusion is so vague and also constitutes original research. Useight 07:22, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. Very crufty, vague and very likely original research. Thin Arthur 07:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as inclusion into this list is based on original research Corpx 07:35, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. I.e. indiscriminate even if sourced and as it stands a mass of OR.  Eluchil404 07:36, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. This list had been part of cult classic for years until i moved it to its own page today. It seems strange that it was tolerated for so long as part of an article, but on its own faces strong resistance. Is there anything i could do to the page to make it acceptable for Wikipedia? I don't have an opinion on whether or not it should be deleted, but as the person whose efforts started this whole process, i feel a responsibility to do what i can for the article. Foobaz·o&lt; 08:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the main article (Cult classic) could list a few of the more notable items from this list, however, I believe List of cult classics is going to be hard to save. Perhaps with some concrete inclusion criteria that cuts the list down to size and some verifiable sources, it could possibly avoid deletion, but doubtful.  Useight 08:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * What if i went through and looked for references describing an item as a cult classic, kept only those i found a reference for, and added the reference with &lt;ref&gt;&lt;/ref&gt;? Would that be enough to keep the article? It would be a hell of a lot of work, so i don't want to proceed unless i get positive feedback. Foobaz·o&lt; 08:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm sure it wouldn't hurt, but I don't know if it would save it. You're right that it would take a lot of time but maybe if multiple people vote "clean up" instead of "strong delete" it could show potential.  I'm only one person, so I don't carry a lot of clout, but I'd recommend first trying to hammer out a solid inclusion criteria.  I'd help out, but it's 1:25AM and I'm getting really tired.  Useight 08:26, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not too sure about an article that is essentially a "list of films that someone, somewhere has described as a 'cult classic'". However, if the descriptions themselves have been noted by other sources (for example, see ), that would seem less of a problem. Jakew 12:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge This was split off from Cult classic, where it was probably quite safe. Once you make it into a separate article, however, this article can rightly be criticized because "cult classic" essentially is a matter of opinion.  We tend to label films that we love to see again and again, and which we find someone else enjoyed (not too hard to find that on the Internet), as cult classics.  More cynically, if it's a film I like that noboby else has ever heard of, it's a "cult classic".  If this is to stay, then it would be easy to refer to some sources.  Since most of this looks like original research right now, maybe the criterion should be something arbitrary, such as a film on which there is agreement in written sources, such as one that's mentioned in at least three "cult classic" books.  Mandsford 14:20, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete per Thin Arthur. Can only be POV.-h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 15:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete- these types of lists are always problematic because of non-existing criteria.--Svetovid 20:13, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per above and the VERY similar discussion previously held at Articles for deletion/List of cult films--nearly the same list. A big part of the problem is the definition--historically 'cult classic' has referred to works that initially flopped (and/or were initially rejected by mainstream audiences and/or critics) or were very obscure, but were brought to light by a 'cult' following (EG The Rocky Horror Picture Show or Hairspray (1988 film) Pink Flamingos ), NOT instant hits like the American Pie, Back to the Future, and Austin Powers series'. Seattlenow 23:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete per Seattlenow Bulldog123 05:44, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete There are indiscriminate lists, and this is an example--includes a great variety of things with nothing more in common than that there are groups of people who like them. Seattlenow's analysis is very much to the point, and anyone can add. This is not just a case of a few misplaced entries. DGG (talk) 06:44, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. If this list can contain as alleged "cult classics" such hugely successful mainstream movies as Harry Potter and When Harry Met Sally, it's meaningless. --Tony Sidaway 10:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Cotton wool.--Bedivere 21:28, 22 August 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.