Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cult films (2nd nomination)


 * 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. The noms assertion that the list is indiscriminate is not accepted. (non-admin closure) Szzuk (talk) 15:32, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

List of cult films
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Too vague, due to lack of definition. Thus testified by the ridiculous size. As seen in the articles Cult film and Cult following, there is no accepted definition of the word cult in this sense, and even less of any academically applicable definition. For this reason, the list has grown extremely big - WP:SIZERULE puts a guideline that articles bigger than 100 kB should be divided, and this one is almost 500 kB(!). I believe no Wikipedia article, list or not, has a reasonable excuse to be 475,415 bytes in size. However, this is not because of lack of maintenance or addition of unsourced claims - this is because this list and its title cannot be checked to any kind of standard of cult definition - it was more or less "doomed to fail". This article is a playground of obscure favourite films. And all while there's no Category:Cult films! Seriously?? I'm sure we can all agree that the article is morbidly obese in size but some may say that deletion is not a solution. In this case, I suggest create bulletproof inclusion criteria and rewrite from scratch. But one thing at a time. For now, delete. Thank you. Gaioa (t,c,l) 15:16, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Thank you.  Gaioa  (t,c,l) 15:17, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Thank you.  Gaioa  (t,c,l) 15:17, 11 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep Large size is not a justification for AfD. Not when articles can be split into several articles. As for rewriting it, you're free to do that on your own time and then swap the two lists when you are confident that your list is more accurate. However, there is certainly a definition for when a film is "cult" - if a reliable source cites critics as saying as such. I agree the inclusion criteria could be a lot tighter.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 16:00, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:NOTESAL because this list topic is valid and per WP:BEFORE because AfD is not clean-up. One should not nominate an article for deletion if they acknowledge that there could be a more presentable list with better inclusion criteria. Size is also irrelevant because lists can be split up, either by alphabetical range or release year. We have multiple lists of films by genre, which I'm sure can be challenging to define at times, but we don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. No reason to do that here either. I suggest having a discussion on the talk page for refining the inclusion criteria. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 16:44, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep AfD is not cleanup, tightening the inclusion criteria is a job for the Talk page, and this list would be easy enough to divide up (e.g., by decade). XOR&#39;easter (talk) 16:52, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per all the above. I raised on the talkpage about splitting the article last year, and it is something I intend to do at some point, to make it more easy on the old pageload.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 17:52, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Response Looks like my point was unclear. I'm not nominating because of large size, and certainly not solely because of large size. I'm only pointing at the size as the symptom of the article's inherent and unfixable problem - there's no way to define what is and is not "cult" . Frankly, we may as well write List of films that people unexpectedly liked and watch it grow indefinitely - it feels like this list is exactly that. I think the designation of cult film should be done solely on the film's own article, and perhaps also in a category. This list, however, feels INDISCRIMINATE and I can't say otherwise until each film on the list has a non-empty column called "Notes". If an ENCYCLOPEDIA are to list cult-films and not a thoughtless free-for-all index, we need to elaborate each and every entry. Gaioa  (t,c,l) 18:33, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Size is irrelevant to discuss here. We could easily discuss size with other broad list topics that are readily acceptable and come to the same conclusion, to engage in splitting up and/or to tighten inclusion criteria. Not to mention that any list of films of any predominant genre is always much bigger than this list. It is a fair point that it can be a challenge to identify what film is a cult film, but we can establish common selection criteria in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. For example, academic books about cult films would have more weight than only one newspaper review calling some film a cult film. I would support adding context wherever possible. If context is not available, then sources should at least be more numerous than usual. Still no reason to engage in deletion. It's still a perfectly viable clean-up task. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 19:26, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Cult films are basically films that have a cult following, as cited in sources - simple enough. If several critics say "Film X has a cult following", then it's a cult film. I don't see what's so undefinable about them.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 20:56, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's a cult film if sources say it is. (Where's Joe Versus the Volcano??? Rolling Stone and DVD Savant "cultify" it.) Needs cleanup though. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:52, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep All the entries have references. If reliable sources call it a "cult film" then it should go on that list.  The length of the list is not a problem.  Best to have everything on one list so you can sort by alphabetical order, by year, or by director as you see fit.   D r e a m Focus  17:34, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep: This is a well-sourced and interesting list, and being large isn't a valid reason for deletion. --Posted by Pikamander2   (Talk)  at 05:41, 18 March 2018 (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.