Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of films featuring diabetes


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 21:05, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

List of films featuring diabetes

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

There isn't significant coverage of the topic in sources; there seems to be only one academic article about the subject. While it may be an interesting list, it simply isn't notable. See also, Afd: List of films featuring home invasions. – Zntrip 05:48, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete as WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Diabetes is not a notable film genre.-- xanchester  (t)  06:53, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * This stand-alone list is not attempting to be a list of films in a particular genre. It is a list of films with content in common. Film genres and film content can overlap (like with home invasions), but they can also be mutually exclusive. This list is based on references outside of Wikipedia, so this is not a topic that is exclusive to Wikipedia. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 10:24, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete, I don't see how featuring diabetes is a notable attribute of films. J I P  &#124; Talk 06:54, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom & above comments. Seems to be listcruft. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:57, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep It may not be as common a plot element in films as, say horse racing, insanity, parenthood, crime solving, combat, or shipwrecks, but it does not have to be the most common thing. It was clearly used a a major plot element in the listed films to provide some reason for urgency, as in Panic Room, or a sly way to kill someone, as in ones where the insulin is adulterated. Such lists and categories are an appropriate way to organize the coverage of films in the encyclopedia. Edison (talk) 21:01, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete While it may make sense to have articles on genres/subgenres, such as the home invasion film, and on prominent themes such as homosexuality in cinema or maybe the representation of illness in film, if they are discussed in academic film studies publications or by multiple serious critics, I can't see enough coverage on diabetes in film for it to be a notable topic. There's a lot of lists of films published with different connections or common features, but just because a movie magazine/website does a "top ten films featuring X", we don't need to have an article on it. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:28, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "Just because a movie magazine/website does a 'top ten films featuring X', we don't need to have an article on it." Why not? Such a list is clearly a reliable source that can be used, and if we have more than one list, there is precedent in the world outside of Wikipedia for a list in it. I understand that this is a topic of marginal notability, but it still has basis in reality. I referenced the notability guidelines for stand-alone lists below, and it is not quite similar to notability expectations of a prose article. (As I mentioned, I do not think there is enough content for a prose article about this topic, but there is enough for a list.) Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 10:24, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 26 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep as a notable list. (Note: I am the creator of this article.) We have three references explicitly about diabetes in film. Two references list how diabetes has appeared in film, so this shows relevance outside Wikipedia. The academic article obviously cites many examples of diabetes in film for its topic. I do not think there is enough content out there for a Diabetes in film prose article, but there is enough content here for a stand-alone list. According to the guidelines for stand-alone lists, "A list topic is considered notable 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. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been." The last sentence is also what justifies reference #9. Thanks, Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 22:51, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * To expand on my original comments, the nominator says the list is not notable. This is not true, as I referenced the notability guidelines for stand-alone lists above. The sources used in the article justify such a list, so unless their reliability is disputed, there is a claim to notability. In addition, the nominator implies that we need more academic articles for this topic to be notable, and this is not true either. We need reliable sources, and we have them already that list films in this manner. I would also note that among the three major references, there is overlap in film titles. Some films like Steel Magnolias are mentioned in all three lists. I understand that the notability is relatively marginal, but per the five pillars, "[Wikipedia] incorporates elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers." Wikipedia is not intended to be a source of original and previously unpublished content, but that is not the case here. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 10:30, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Rename List of films featuring diseases. Diabetes isn't notable enough for a list of its own, but it's another story when you throw in cancer, ebola, alien diseases, Huntingdon's chorea, etc. (The Pride of the Yankees, The Andromeda Strain and Brian's Song would fit in well.) Clarityfiend (talk) 01:56, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It would be neat to see lists of films featuring each of these, especially cancer. (I created this particular article while working on Panic Room.) Still, I think it would be more palatable to have individual lists depending on available references. Maybe there could be a mix of both? List of films featuring diseases could both link to stand-alone lists about specific diseases and also have embedded lists if a particular disease is not referenced (per WP:NOTESAL)? Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 10:24, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: I added this, which is a reliable source because it has the editorial oversight of the periodical Diabetes Health. This helps provide context for the relevance of this stand-alone list. As I said above, a source does not have to be "academic" to indicate notability. This is clearly a topic of minor—not nonexistent—note. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 15:52, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree that this is a slippery slope given how many diseases there are, but diabetes is easily in the top 5 most common diseases (in developing countries). Also the number of films produced is (still currently) manageable, if it was books it would be too indiscriminate (over 100x the number of books to films). I think an article on "films featuring disease" is a great idea, if it's delineated in the top 5 or 10 diseases, and perhaps some consideration about fiction vs documentary since documentaries may be too indiscriminate, except for certain ones (difficult line to draw). -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:53, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - per the sources provided by Erik in the article. It meets the Wikipedia criteria for Stand-alone Lists as a referenced unified topic. (I also like Clarityfriend's and Erik's ideas for the possibility of expanding the topic to include other well-represented diseases: creating a general List of films featuring physical diseases. I see that there is already a List of films featuring mental illness, although it definitely needs some citations.) — Cactus Writer (talk) 19:33, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley (public)  talk   00:17, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Rename - I like the idea of renaming the article to List of films featuring physical diseases as complementary to List of films featuring mental illness with a sub-section on diabetes. Physical afflictions are a common sub-plot in many films and there's easily room to include other illnesses. Off the top of my head, asthma especially could do with a sub-section - Le Chiffre in Casino Royale and Morgan Hess in Signs, etc. It does have the potential to become an WP:OR golem so we'd need to be careful of that. Stalwart 111  01:14, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep but trim. Our established practice is to include only the ones where the plot element is import, such as Reversal of Fortune or This Old Cub.Some, like Soul Food (film) seem borderline, but many in the list do not belong there. There are many other such disease as a central plot element, and we should list them separately. We could put them as a section in one very big list, but I do not see how that would be helpful.  DGG ( talk ) 06:49, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * DeleteMany of these films aren't "featuring" diabetes, diabetes is merely mentioned. If we had pages for films that mention any concept, where would be stop? As has been mentioned, a page featuring films for "diseases" with some sort of limitation on what diseases, would be a useful page and a lot more workable. Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:29, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * "If we had pages for films that mention any concept, where would be stop?" This is where policies and guidelines can be referenced. WP:NOTESAL says, "A list topic is considered notable 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 references where the list topic is discussed as a group or set. That is our guiding star. We are not going to have articles like "List of films featuring pencils" because there just are not sources that do that, unlike here. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 12:55, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, we have only one solidly reliable source: Ferguson's "The Cinema of Control: On Diabetic Excess and Illness in Film". The other sources do not speak to notability. Aside from Ferguson, the only talk of diabetes in film are from diabetes advocacy groups (which literally cover all aspects of diabetes) and a blog that publishes a myriad of silly film lists (i.e. 10 Monster Weddings). – Zntrip 19:03, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you saying the other sources are not reliable? Assuming they are considered reliable, then per the notability guidelines for stand-alone lists, they absolutely qualify in supporting the list topic. If the sources' reliability is questionable, let's review them. We have one from dLife which is an established media network; this shows plenty of background that demonstrates its credibility. In addition, indieWire is not just a blog; it has been referenced in many film articles with its reliability never questioned. The "monster weddings" link is a strawman; indieWire has hosted all kinds of interviews and analyses. I've already covered Diabetes Health above as a published periodical in circulation. It is clear that this is a topic of narrow scope but the interest is definitely there, as reflected by these sources. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 21:02, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Here is yet another source that talks about diabetes in films. I find it reliable because there are medical professionals who analyze some of the films (all of which are already included in the list). EDIT: I think we could have a decent number of paragraphs above this list, combining this new source with the others. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 21:10, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per Erik and DGG. --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:21, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - needs trimming, but I believe that the representation of diabetes in film is likely a notable, sourceable topic - as noted above there is at least one good academic source available. Claritas § 16:45, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Valuable resource appropriate for wikipedia. Etobgirl (talk) 23:22, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep but rename - the notable subject argued for is "(Portrayal of) Diabetes in film" - I doubt any of the sources actually attempt to list all films that feature diabetes. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 01:58, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, diabetes is very uncommon to see in films. Dr. Ferguson (the academic reference in this article) said so himself, and his article named the majority of the titles already listed. Whatever titles that do not have a footnote to him are just other references being used instead (so there is not excessive footnoting). So this list is not that likely to grow much longer, really. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 02:51, 10 December 2012 (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.