Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of film accents considered the worst


 * 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.


 * Does WP:BLP apply? This one is tricky.  I think we can consider film actors to be public figures, and under WP:PUBLICFIGURE it says, If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out.  In some cases (for example, Dennis Quaid in The Big Easy), we have multiple reviews all saying the same thing about his accent.  In others, we only have a single source.  But, I don't think a bad review is an allegation.  It's a review.  Actors get reviewed.  It's part of acting.  So, in balance, I'm rejecting the BLP arguments.


 * Next, we have to look at the WP:NOR aspects. Clearly, everything in this article is somebody's opinion.  But, those people are professional film reviewers writing for major news outlets.  We're just summarizing those primary sources.	We don't have to take as gospel everything that's printed in the Chicago Tribune or the LA Times, but they do meet the bar for reliable sources.  So, I don't think NOR really applies either.


 * I'm not fond of these kinds of articles. I think they're trivial and pointless, and I probably would have opined delete had I participated in this AfD myself.  But, looking carefully at the comments, I just don't find enough policy-based argument to warrant the delete hammer.

-- RoySmith (talk) 14:59, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

List of film accents considered the worst

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is WP:SYNTH and fails WP:LISTN. Beerest 2 talk 21:49, 11 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Criteria for inclusion is far too subjective and violates WP:SYNTH. MarnetteD | Talk 22:21, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * While subjectivity can be debated, the policy of WP:SYNTH is not applicable here. There are numerous reliable sources listing items that match this topic. Synthesis in this case would be a universe where no lists existed and where editors pieced together only individual reviews to put together this particular list. That's not the case here. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 19:56, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It most certainly is applicable. The sources are not reliable as I have staed more than once. You may believe they are reliable but that does not make them so. Unless you can provide evidence of how the Chicago Tribune and Entertainment Weekly compiled their lists you have no evidence synthesis is as likely as anything else. You can't even prove that the compilers even saw the films and performances in question. without evidence you cannot state whether "that is the case here' or not. MarnetteD | Talk 20:10, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Why would the Chicago Tribune not be considered a reliable source? It's a major newspaper which has editorial oversight. This being the case, we trust that they did their research. We cannot dispute it without cause. Even if a source is considered unreliable, it's still not synthesis. Synthesis only applies to what we editors should not do, which is combine separate references to draw a unique conclusion. If we quoted two individual reviews that disparaged an accent and claimed that the film was considered the worst, that would be synthesis. However a reliable or unreliable source compiles its list, it's not synthesis. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 20:25, 16 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep since WP:LISTN states, "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list." We have multiple reliable sources in this article that discuss a set of worst film accents. We can excise the sources that do not discuss a set, but it does not invalidate the topic. We can apply specific criteria for listing a film here. See below. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 22:30, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Comes across as a celebrity bashing article rather than an encyclopedic one. Poorly cited except for a few and the list is subjective and reeks of WP:OR. JOJ Hutton  22:59, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Are the few not sufficient to have a notable list per WP:LISTN? There are probably more out there. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 23:01, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Agree with the nominator. Anupmehra  - Let's talk!  23:02, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned in reply to MarnetteD above, WP:SYNTH cannot apply here. In addition, this list does meet WP:LISTN because there are numerous reliable sources listing items under this topic. Wikipedia is able to have a stand-alone list based on these independently created lists. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 19:56, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Again the sources are not "numerous" and their "reliability" is in question. Continually saying they are reliable, when they are so subjective, does not make them soMarnetteD | Talk 20:15, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Mainstream periodicals are generally considered reliable sources. They have editorial oversight. Is there not a reason to trust these journalists to summarize critics' responses to accents? Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 20:33, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: I am concerned that reliable sources listing the worst film accents are being overlooked because of the article's poor layout. Let me give it an overhaul in which it will only reference lists of worst accents. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 23:08, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep This passes WP:LISTN because there is a reasonable amount of commentary out there about this. And it's not clear what the synthetic proposition is supposed to be.  Juxtaposition is not synthesis. Andrew (talk) 23:17, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - I believe synthesis occurs when conclusions are drawn that are not expressly stated in the sources. Nicolas Cage's entry is a shining example. Gene Siskel's single review neither uses the word "worst" nor is it even all that harsh. Summarizing critical reception is typically left to review aggregators, not Wikipedia editors. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:56, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that we should remove these examples, but that still leaves some references being lists that are about this topic. It's a matter of cleanup, not outright deletion. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 01:01, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you think between the sources that are left and the sources that are currently available that there is significant coverage to merit an article?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:42, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I do. I searched for this kind of list online, and it is pretty common, both in reliable sources and blogs. I think that this list would be better in a table format so we can identify the film, the actor, and a description of the role and accent. If we want, we can do something like require two independent mentions for listing. Something like Dick Van Dyke in Mary Poppins would be easy to reinforce, but a one-off complaint can be excluded. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 15:56, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * If that is the case, I do not see why the article cannot be kept.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:58, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Blogs? Really? Have I missed something? since when do blogs meet the criteria of a WP:RS MarnetteD | Talk 20:18, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Relyuctant Kyeep per Erique. Unfortunately there are plenty of reliable sources: Huffington Post, Woman's Day magazine, Empire (via the BBC), Empire again. Just needs cleanup. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:37, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep There are many wikipedia pages that summarise general attitudes and popular and critical reception like List of films considered the worst, List of music considered the worst, List of television series notable for negative reception and Albums considered the greatest ever. This page just needs cleanup and better citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.40.72.231 (talk) 08:45, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Some content is good/well-cited—Delete uncited examples — Preceding unsigned comment added by $a$y0ne (talk • contribs) 08:48, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 12 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment A google books search reveals virtually no serious discourse on the subject, so the list has questionable encyclopedic legitimacy. However, film accents do seem to be the subject of many magazine articles: they are undeniably fluff pieces but they do have an enduring presence. Perhaps we are just mishandling the topic, and some sensible criteria might address the problems. Betty Logan (talk) 20:26, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete I don't think there's been a threshold of serious discourse on film accents as presented in this list, as opposed to individual performances, that would merit the creation of this list per the aforementioned criteria. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 21:59, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * What about the application of WP:LISTN? And I'm not sure why "serious discourse" is required here. We don't require individual films to have "serious discourse" to qualify for their own articles. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 22:11, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep per Erik and Clarityfiend. More examples of sources, from HighBeam: The Independent ; Daily Record (Scotland)  (both good and bad accents discussed here); Sunday Mail (Scotland) (reporting on the Empire list) ; St. Joseph News-Press .  Also, a 2010 Cambridge University Press book entitled Second Dialect Acquisition discusses bad acting accents and mentions some of the websites that collect them (as well as a brief mention of a Wikipedia article!) .    --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:53, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. As long as it's sourced to reliable sources I see no problem with it, although it's currently a rather poorly presented article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:53, 13 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment: IMO this article will always have subjectivity problems.
 * The first one is in the title "Considered by" - by whom. Film critics? Anonymous list compilers? Since when are film critics experts in linguistics and accents? Lists like the one from the Chicago Times and Entertainment Weekly don't bother list the people who compiled them so they can't be considered anything more than opinion.
 * It is not unknown for a critic to develop an antipathy toward a given actor and criticism of an accent is just one more brick that they will through in an attempt to prove their point.
 * The next problem is the way they are categorized. Whether it be countries large like the US or small like Ireland there are a wide variety of accents spoken. The average critic (and even some of the above average ones) will have only a passing knowledge of these nuances. Kudos to anyone who can describe what the distinguishing characteristics of a Paraguayan accent are. I am sure that you will know more about it than anyone on the Entertainment Weekly staff ever has.
 * I think that one criteria for the list is that the actor in question should actually have been trying speak in the accent listed. Dennis Quaid in The Big Easy is someone who fits into this. OTOH Sean Connery is not. He doesn't attempt an Irish accent in The Untouchables. In fact whether he is playing characters historical like Roald Amundsen or fictional like Daniel Dravot or Robin Hood he has performed them all with his native Scottish (or should it be Scots?) accent. Back in the days of standup comedy on TV there was one person who could imitate him perfectly and part of his routine was something like "I am an ancient Egyptian who lived in Spain for a couple hundred years but I still sound more like a Highlander than Connor MacLeod.
 * Having said all this if the decision is to keep this wont be the only WikiP article with subjectivity problems. I hope that the editors who put the article on their watchlist will keep a tight rein on the info added. MarnetteD | Talk 19:32, 13 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Strongest Possible Delete I'm stunned anyone would see any value in an article that is so poorly sourced, so subjective, so riddled with assumptions and so pointless. Just because the evaluations of accents appear in reliable sources doesn't make the critics' opinions reliable or of any particular value.  Their jobs are to have opinions with which we can agree or disagree.  They don't represent any sort of objective standard, good or bad. --Drmargi (talk) 04:20, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * No one is saying that this kind of list can be held to an objective standard. We have lists of films considered the best and the worst, which are subjective as well. It can be a challenge, but considering that such lists comply with WP:LISTN, Wikipedia can juxtapose a variety of sources using criteria determined by editors for inclusion. In this case, we can come up with criteria to include the worst accents. The most frequently mentioned accents in retrospect would be the most qualified. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 05:17, 16 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I am saying that these lists should be held to an objective standard so please don't use the term "no one." Film critics review films so best or worst lists are part of their job. I am sorry but this response completely misses the point that the sources used are not compiled by people who have any understanding of linguistics or any understanding as to what is or is not a good accent. WikiP is supposed to be an encyclopedia not a collection of uninformed opinions. MarnetteD | Talk 05:28, 16 February 2014 (UTC)


 * In the case of the Chicago Tribune and Entertainment Weekly sources we don't even know who the people are who compiled the lists. There is no guarantee that the people polled even saw the actors performances that they are commenting on. We need to apply a higher standard then the ones used so far. MarnetteD | Talk 05:37, 16 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I think we need to use different language here. Even film critics' assessment of films is subjective, but they can be considered authorities in making such judgments. There's no such thing as an objective standard when it comes to the arts. I see value in this article because there is a space that obvious candidates like Dick Van Dyke in Mary Poppins or Kevin Costner in Robin Hood occupy. Is it impossible to have any kind of article that can discuss such accents, even if just accents in film in general, with these two as some of the examples of poor accents? Is there any potential if we move away from a "list" mentality here? Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 05:41, 16 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I am sorry that you don't seem to be reading what I have written. Film critics cannot be considered authorities in regard to accents for the numerous reasons that I have provided. If you are going to "move away from a list" then the best place to have the info is in the "Reception" section of the individual film articles. Since the reviews referred to (or quoted from) are subjective opinions then that would seem to be the proper place for this kind of opinion. I would reiterate my point that the actor in question should actually be attempting to speak in a given accent. MarnetteD | Talk 05:49, 16 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Oh, I meant film critics have been referenced to determine the best and worst films, e.g., a Sight & Sound poll. I think requiring linguists as sources is too stringent of a criterion. You mention leaving mention of bad accents at individual film articles, and I am looking for a way not to do that. I find it clear that lists are commonplace and that WP:LISTN can apply here. I think that readers would benefit from learning about film accents when they read about a particular one in a given article. It could be this list but cleaned up and with stricter criteria, or even just film accent if that is doable and easier to write. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 06:12, 16 February 2014 (UTC)


 * This simply doesn't allow for the fact that critics are not trained to understand what does and does constitute a "good" or "bad" accent. I just can't see the benefit of giving readers the opinion of an uninformed person or person(s) - and I will state it again - if you can find a film reviewer who can tell me what makes up a Paraguayan accent then you deserve all the kudos in the world. MarnetteD | Talk 06:28, 16 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Regarding Anaconda, I found numerous statements universally deriding Voight's accent. Statements need to be verifiable based on reliable sources, and we apply due weight based on the sources. That's why this list and similar ones use "considered", rather than just saying list-of-best/worst. An accent only mentioned in one of the sources would not warrant inclusion because we can determine that it is not repeatedly considered bad, like some examples in Entertainment Weekly. Wikipedia reports, and it can report at least on Anaconda that the accent within is considered atrocious. Even then, we could exclude the Paraguayan example based on unfamiliarity, but that does not mean the American and British examples are equally invalid. The critique of these accents on both sides of the pond is much more common considering these cultures' association with film, in contrast to Paraguay. To distill this to a question, do you think there is no way to have an article about accents in film? We could try to find linguistic coverage about accents in film in general (I think another editor highlighted a scholarly enough source), and we can report as part of that coverage that these accents are considered especially bad. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 14:01, 16 February 2014 (UTC)


 * This (the specific page and the book in general), published by the University of Bamberg, to me reinforces the possibility of having a space to report on discussion about accents in film. It seems a disservice not to do that on Wikipedia. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 14:08, 16 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The publication you refer to is Shane Walshe's doctoral dissertation at the University of Bamberg, wherein he reports the results of his study of the representations of Irish English, not Irish accents in film, and pays far more attention to vocabulary and expressions than use of accents. At least it has some academic gravitas.  But it's not sufficient to support an article by a long way.  --Drmargi (talk) 19:50, 16 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Responding to Erik's first comment, I'm saying that it should be held to an objective standard, particularly given the "eye of the beholder" element that comes into play. Do we all know what a country's standard accent, much less regional accents sound like?  Do critics?  This is the wheelhouse of linguists, not film critics.  I've seen critics lambaste actors for inaccurate accents, often regional, that were dead on accurate.  They don't know, and they're no sort of acceptable standard for what it or isn't good.  I wouldn't hang your argument on Sean Connery; he's never tried to get rid of his Scottish accent, just dial it down, even playing a Russian sub commander in "The Hunt for Red October", and has said as much in interviews.  America at the time of "The Untouchables" was a country of first generation immigrants many of whom had strong regional accents.  You go to the right part of Ireland, and the difference between their regional accent and a Scots accent is pretty fine because of the geographical closeness and the residue of the movement of Scots Protestants into the north.  No, he didn't have a Lucky Charms accent, which the critics are looking for, but he did have one perfectly acceptable for an immigrant.  --Drmargi (talk) 19:28, 16 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Responding to Erik's second comment, being an expert (if film critics can reasonably be termed experts, which I'd question) on film doesn't make a critic an expert on everything in a film. They're not fashion historians, political scientists, experts on social mores or numerous other elements of film, and generally don't pretend to be.  When they get into that sort of territory, they run the risk of being wide of the mark in their criticisms; the same applies to accents.  Perfect example:  EW criticized Drew Barrymore in its lightweight photo feature for a poor French accent.  Problem?  She was using a gentle British accent designed to match the rest of the largely British cast.  Where's the reliability of that source, much less the expertise?  I agree with Marnette's comment above that the article should go and the comments on individual accents should be incorporated into the various film Reception sections, with attribution to individual critics (versus "widely believed" type language).  As for the EW photo essay, it makes no attributions to sources and is unreliable on its face; coupled with the NPOV cherry-picking of listed actors identified in the article, it needs to go altogether.  --Drmargi (talk) 19:40, 16 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The term "objective standard" is just not applicable here. There is no objective "right" or "wrong" assessment of an accent. The assessment is always going to be subjective, but we can discuss who should be authoritative in determining the authenticity of an accent. You mention examples of critics misjudging an accent's authenticity, and I find it likely that such misjudgments will not find consensus. There are going to be one-off examples, and there are going to be examples that are confirmed by numerous reliable sources to be inauthentic. As I mentioned below, it may be appropriate to expand the scope of this article to talk about different accents as a whole. For example, in an "American accent" section, we could discuss the wave of British actors who successfully convey themselves as American, and also highlight examples of authentic and inauthentic accents, as verified by numerous reliable sources' collective agreement. It does not have to be a list, it can be a prose article without a specific judgment in the title which will leave it to the text to explain aspects like Connery's accent throughout his filmography. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 19:45, 16 February 2014 (UTC)


 * And all I've seen that comes close to meeting the standard of authoritative is one doctoral dissertation from 2009 on portrayals of Irish English in film. Critics are not authorities, nor are the publications in which they present their criticisms.  So, we're now left with no objectivity and no authorities, and yet are to accept the lists as reliably sourced and encyclopedic when in fact, the article far from meets either standard.  At best, we've got a pointless and mean-spirited list of accents that critics found annoying.  --Drmargi (talk) 19:59, 16 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Film critics are indeed authoritative. They assess various qualities of a film, including production and acting. They're the ones that determine what films are considered the best or the worst. Even in these sets, there is not total agreement. The same goes with assessing individual performances. To require only that linguists assess accents in film is an impossible standard. Linguists' commentary can be part of the overall topic, but I disagree that they should be the only ones to say anything about accents in film. I like the idea below of finding a compromise. If we wrote a general article about accents in film, would that be a better replacement? Would such an article be able to identify the most noteworthy examples of either authentic or inauthentic accents? Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 20:10, 16 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Not in toto. Certain among them, such as Roger Ebert or Kenneth Turan, yes. Many others, not as much or at all, particularly as we move into the realm of film bloggers and amateur film critics.  But you entirely miss my point:  they are experts about FILM -- the process of telling a story on film or video -- not every tiny element of the story being told, as I noted above.  Being experts about film does not, by default, make them experts about the content of the film, particularly when we're looking at factors such as history, social customs, politics, science, dress, language, and accents, among many.  They are experts on the total package, not the individual elements that make up the package.  Moreover, they are the ones who have opinions about what films are best and worst; they are not the definitive final word.  I'll leave that to film scholars, just as I'll leave assessment of the accents to the appropriate expert: a linguist.  It's not an impossible standard, but a reasonable on, particularly in an article that purports to present a definitive list. --Drmargi (talk) 20:47, 16 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment geared toward achieving compromise While I am fascinated by the fire I started, I wonder if there's not a different perspective we could take here. My problems with the article are multiple, but they begin with the title: "List of film accents considered the worst". That has grated my nerves because it is suggesting that these are accents that Wikipedia considers the worst. If we changed the title to something like "List of film accents that have made Worst Accent lists" (not necessarily that language) then the list appearing on the page could be sourced to these "worst" lists, and we could disregard individual reviews. Is there anything to this? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:54, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, we could try to move away from the "worst" categorization. We could just have English-language accents in film with different sections for different accents. During my research, I had fun reading about Boston accents (good and bad) and thought that maybe this topic's scope needs to be bigger for that kind of thing. Along the same lines, we could have a "Cockney" section that mentions Dick Van Dyke's panned accent in Mary Poppins as well as Marlene Dietrich's widely commended accent in Witness for the Prosecution. Just a thought I had this morning. :) Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 17:59, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * There are some possibilities here but as long as the sources are film critics or unnamed people compiling a list we would still be putting uninformed opinion in an article. Now, if you can find articles or lists compiled by dialect coaches then you would be giving our readers some useful information. MarnetteD | Talk 18:12, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * "I found numerous statements universally deriding Voight's accent." Could we please have links to see how "numerous" these are. It would also be helpful if the people making these statements could be shown to have some proficiency in speaking Paraguayan. Also, for them to be "universal" we will need reviews from Andromeda and the Horse Head Nebula. A hyperbolic term like "universal" does not belong in our articles nor in dicsussions about them. MarnetteD | Talk 20:30, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * What I mean by "universal" is that I did not see any statements that commended his accent. None of the statements are by linguists, though. I do think it is a relatively weak entry in the scope of covering accents in film, as I mentioned somewhere above. There are other accents that have gotten more attention. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 20:50, 16 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:LISTN and Clarityfiend. This is an unnecessary and subjective topic for published criticism, but notable and relatively harmless. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 14:31, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: Harmless - except, of course, for the WP:BLP violations when a critic has a beef with an actor and attacks them by disparaging their performance in various ways including their accent. MarnetteD | Talk 16:33, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant. Proper sourcing is proper sourcing. It's not up to us to decide the reason for it as long as it appears in a reputable source. In any case, inclusion in this list should require multiple sources, so this should not be an issue. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:54, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * And please note that I used the phrase "relatively harmless" (emphasis added). -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 07:53, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmm I had not seen that attacks and BLP violations were suddenly allowable as long as the source was "reputable." In this case "reputable sources" are most certainly in the eye of the beholder. Thus this objection is not irrelevant. As the article stands at the moment the only only sourcing, so far, are people with no background in linguistics. Subjective opinion is not a reputable or reliable source. MarnetteD | Talk 19:10, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * BTW at the moment only five of the entries at this page have multiple sources. MarnetteD | Talk 19:14, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The notion of "proper sourcing" is an interesting one in this capacity. Film critique is reliable for precisely that, so the question is whether accents come under the scope of critique. For instance, would a film critic be reliable for a list of psychopathic traits exhibited by Norman Bates? Would a film critic be reliable for scientific inaccuracies in a film like Gravity? When critique starts to draw upon more than a layman's knowledge of another field at what point do we draw the line? When I was working on the Gone with the Wind article I came across some commentary that actually addressed the criticism of "British accents" in the American Deep South, pointing out that at around this time many residents were second and third generation British immigrants so many accents of the time actually sounded British anyway! I'm on the fence on this one because I think it's a topic that has received quite a bit of coverage, but the key problem is it's always magazine fluff and never anybody qualified in dialects or languages. Betty Logan (talk) 19:33, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * , you may be interested in my comment at Talk:List of film accents considered the worst. If one searches for something like site:variety.com accent coach, there is some good historical context about accents in films that go beyond juxtaposing fluff magazine lists. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 19:44, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The criteria for inclusion are a content issue (per WP:LSC), distinct from the evaluation of notabililty. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 07:53, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:LC items 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 10, and 11. Stifle (talk) 15:02, 21 February 2014 (UTC)}
 * 3. How is the topic "indiscriminate" if there are numerous periodicals covering atrocious film accents?
 * 4. The content is not unverifable; it can be verified with the aforementioned periodicals. (You can argue that the periodicals are not authoritative enough, though.)
 * 6. This list is hardly unmaintainable. Can you explain why you think this?
 * 8. "Not expected to be included in an encyclopedia." I can understand that, but Wikipedia goes beyond any normal encyclopedia.
 * 10. The claim of original research is a content problem. The list can exclude individual reviews, but independent lists for this topic exist.
 * 11. A disproportionate effort to keep up? Like with #6, it's hardly unmaintainable, especially if we keep it to a historical perspective.
 * Thanks, Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 15:10, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete per WP:LC, WP:NOR. How on earth do you quantify "accents considered the worst?" Is somebody keeping data on this? Is some notable source statistically sampling movie reviews to empirically establish which accents are most disliked? Probably not, which makes this original research. List of small-bust models and performers and List of songs that contain the laughter of children--both cited by as classic examples of listcruft--are infinitely less subjective than this (though equally trivial). If THIS isn't listcruf, then there's no such thing as listcruf. --Atlantictire (talk) 23:29, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete, the Keep !votes citing WP:LISTN completely miss the point. Inclusion is purely subjective, based on original research, and the sources provided are largely tabloidy or "oddly enough" sections in more credible publications.  Plus, what if I was to present a source saying that Mel Gibson's accent in Braveheart was actually rather good.  Would we include it in an article called List of film accents considered the best as well?  Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:56, 22 February 2014 (UTC).
 * Delete (having changed from keep above). After some discussion, research, and consideration, I think this scope is best replaced by one that is broader and more neutral. Namely, one called English-language accents in film. Wikipedia should cover accents in some way, which was why I originally advocated keeping this article. We do have list of films considered the best and list of films considered the worst, after all. However, the point has been raised that the sources that list such accents are not good enough. WP:NEWSORG states, "When taking information from opinion content, the identity of the author may help determine reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint." In terms of making a "best" or "worst" judgment, we need better than what we have here. I've noticed that there is inconsistency in listing some films. For example, Sean Connery and the use of his Scottish accent has been judged in different ways. This kind of thing to me suggests that we need to be appropriately neutral per WP:NPOV and engage in explanation and attribution, which ultimately defeats the purpose of this list. In the article English-language accents in film, we could cover the general history of such accents and have sections for different accents. Such an article would not have to be declarative about best or worst accents. In the process of discussing Cockney accents, we could say as part of the coverage that Dick Van Dyke's accent in Mary Poppins is popularly considered atrocious. There's also coverage about Michael Caine popularizing the Cockney accent, and about Marlene Dietrich's accent in Witness for the Prosecution being commended at the time. By writing prose in this scope, we can avoid declarative judgments and per WP:STRUCTURE be able to neutrally fold content about specific accents together. Doing that would be an improvement over this list. Here are some sources that stood out for me for that kind of article: Variety, Los Angeles Times, New York Times. (Pinging, ,, and to see if they would reconsider.) Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 13:35, 22 February 2014 (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.