Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of films about pianists


 * 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 even after discounting Knulclunk vote. Jaranda wat's sup 19:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

List of films about pianists

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

With this criteria, as long as the main character is of a specific occupation, you can make a List of films about list for it. Essentially, a randomly generated collection of information. Bulldog123 04:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:TRIVIA.   Also loose inclusion criteria since this film is about an occupation. Corpx 04:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - this is a list of loosely associated topics. Note that this used to be called "Piano in popular culture" and was AFDed once previously under that title to a result of no consensus. The keep reasoning was poor then and remains poor. Otto4711 12:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as loosely associated list. Useight 18:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete suffers from the same problems as most "songs about" lists: how about the subject must the film be and who tells us that its at least that much about the subject? Carlossuarez46 19:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not a well-defined list and/or potentially gigantic and unmanageable. Doctormatt 21:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep All of the films appear to have piano playing and pianists as a central theme, except for Casablanca, which seems to have been thrown in. Learning to play the piano remains a part of American popular culture, not always enjoyed by the student.  Warning to author, this is going to get axed anyway, so save it and think about how you would revise it and bring it back sometime.  Mandsford 02:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Encouraging people to recreate material after it's deleted is disruptive. Otto4711 15:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No, it is not. If the article is deleted, I am not aware of any proscription on trying it again. Perhaps cooler heads will prevail, when this current reign of terror on lists is over. Tvoz | talk 17:48, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong keep what is wrong with having articles that identify a common theme across films? How is it randomly generated?  It's a valid compilation.  Further: it appears to me that the name change here after the no consensus  Afd, is an attempt to narrow the focus from "Pianos in popular culture" to specifically films about pianists, which should be more acceptable to those who find this indiscriminate and random, but that requires having a neutral viewpoint about the value of lists of things in popular culture.  Please remember that there is an entire academic field of study about popular culture and it includes comparative study which lists like this facilitate.. Tvoz | talk 17:48, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * We have plenty of "in popular culture" articles but I hardly see the relevance of a list of films that include one element in them. What academic value is there behind seeing if a electrician is in a film or not? Since many of these films aren't "about" pianists, that is a completely legitimate comparison. Bulldog123 20:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If you look at the list, I think you can see that it isn't a case of a pianist happening to be in the film as an incidental point - the piano playing is central to the film. If some entries don't belong, they can be removed (which ones were you referring to, by the way?) - that's not a reason to jettison the list. I've not edited there, or  its predecessor, by the way, so I'm not defending my own work. Tvoz | talk 21:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete WP:NOT, Too loosely associated. Saikokira 03:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination. --Dezidor 22:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep This is useful, non-trivial information. Regardless, WP:TRIVIA applies to trivia sections within articles, not to categories some might arbitrarily deem trivial. Also, although it's been referenced as a justification for deleting this list, I can find no section of WP:NOT relevant to this list. Also, I don't think the slippery slope argument cited by the nominator should be sufficient justification in itself to delete a useful category. Why not delete any inappropriate categories that a category may spawn, rather than deleting a useful category.--Osbojos 23:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep strikes me as perfectly appropriate for a list. Those who cite WP:NOT ignore that what WP:NOT is getting at is directory-like lists (thus, the heading under which that particular cite resides "WP is not a Directory"); those citing WP:Trivia ignore that that part of the MOS addresses the stylistic use of lists within articles, as opposed to independent lists. The delete reasoning has been poor before and is poor again.  No policy basis for deletion.  A Musing 23:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep What an excellent list! --Knulclunk 17:04, 18 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.