Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of films about mathematicians


 * 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, defaults to Keep. NawlinWiki 13:18, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

List of films about mathematicians

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Another "about" list. Alone the fact that 21 grams is on this list shows a problem. Other than that, this is an indiscriminate list, as having lists of films that feature some random entity is unmaintainable. Bulldog123 23:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - as lists go, it looks interesting, and small enough to be manageable. Gordonofcartoon 00:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It would be interesting if the entrees were actually about mathematicians. They're not. And there's hardly enough that are to fill up a list anyway. Bulldog123 00:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * it was interpreted as "scientist who uses a lot of math" which is a little vague, but the non-mathematicans are actually theoretical physicists, which is reasonably closely related--its a fairly good list. DGG (talk) 01:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete; "films about mathematicians" isn't a film genre, Wikipedia has no article discussing "films about mathematicians". Most "Films about..." lists should be deleted as they are generally lists of loosely associated topics, ie Straw Dogs and To Sir, with Love (and many others listed) have so little in common that grouping them together has no encyclopdic value. Masaruemoto 01:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as redundant with Category:Mathematical films. Chubbles 01:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge with the mathematical films category listed above. I think, however, that the definition of mathematician is made overly broad to include physicists, engineers, and in some cases, the character's occupation has little do with the plot.  There are few films actually about mathematicians, A Beautiful Mind being one of them. Mandsford 02:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep the list adds extra content (brief synopsis of film) not included in the category. Some items could be removed, although having a mathematican in a film is a rare enough event to justify inclusion. --Salix alba (talk) 15:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions.  -- Bduke 04:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete suffers from the same problem as most "films about" articles: how "about" the subject must the film be and who tells us that it is at least that much about it? And as for "having a mathematician in a film is a rare enough event to justify inclusion" as suggested above being the standard, the article is an indiscriminate list per nom. Carlossuarez46 23:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep annotated lists serve different purposes than categories. dml 19:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 02:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep "Some random entity"?  That's just silly.  As for merging with a category, it is long established Wikipedia policy that the existence of a category is not grounds for deleting a list.  Lists have advantages that categories lack.  (And some say vice versa too, so maybe it's both.) Michael Hardy 18:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep I see no good grounds for its deletion, and the case for WP:NOT indiscriminant collection of information does not seem to have been clearly presented. Silly rabbit 18:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. The fact that the list needs some pruning does not establish grounds for its deletion.  This list is manageable with a clearly-defined purpose.  VectorPosse 19:07, 13 July 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.
 * 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.