Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of films featuring drones


 * 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. Leaning keep. And, I would like some less assumption of bad faith. (non-admin closure) &#x222F; WBG converse 08:42, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

List of films featuring drones

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This page fails WP:N and WP:NOT. Specifically:

1) There is no indication of notability of the topic as a list (WP:LISTN). In discussion on the subject talk page numerous articles were provided discussing drones in film (e.g., 1 2 3 4). Whilst these might support an article on the subject of drones in film (i.e., the cultural phenomenon) per se, they do not provide any consistent list inclusion criteria (required per WP:LSC or actually take the form of a list. Typically they each discuss 2-3 films that feature drones of various kinds without providing anything from which a list could meaningfully be constructed. The absence of any list inclusion criteria has caused the addition of many films which clearly do not actually include drones in any meaningful way (e.g., Back To The Future II).

2) This is an indiscriminate collection of trivia and as such fails WP:NOT.

I found nothing in my WP:BEFORE that can rescue the page. I suppose re-factoring the page as a category might be defensible, if it could be shown that this is an enduring cultural phenomenon, however this would require evidence of WP:SUSTAINED coverage of the subject, which I did not find. As it is, though I'm not a fan of randomly labelling stuff 'Cruft', this is pure Listcruft. FOARP (talk) 11:11, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  ~Ruyaba~   {talk}  12:23, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  ~Ruyaba~   {talk}  12:23, 11 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep because it satisfies WP:NOTESAL, which says, "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." The nominator admits that sources exist to support that these films have been discussed as a group or set, as evidenced by their links. More sources can be found. The nominator is making up their own special rule that such discussion must "actually take for the form of a list". Furthermore, "Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable." However, it is absolutely possible to have a discussion about more stringent list inclusion criteria like at List of films with a 100% rating on Rotten Tomatoes, so the nominator's insistence of deleting this article without having such a discussion violates WP:BEFORE. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 14:46, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Another such source. The New York Times has an article here headlined, "'Eye in the Sky' and 'National Bird' Train Sights on Warfare by Remote Control", also mentioning in addition to these headlined film titles, The Bourne Legacy and Good Kill.
 * I also found this, the journal Defense & Security Analysis having an article, "Cinema, drone warfare and the framing of counter-terrorism". Here is the abstract: "The study of the cinematic representation is extremely useful in framing of counter-terrorism policies, whether in the US or elsewhere. This paper examines cinema’s interest in drone warfare as well as the lives and personalities of drone pilots. It argues that drone warfare suffers a considerable image problem that has been brought out in several recent features and it is unlikely that any major cinematic myth of drone warfare will easily develop, certainly in comparison to myths concerning special forces and special operations."
 * So this is even more evidence that this list meets WP:NOTESAL. There is no reason to delete the article outright. If you want to have stricter criteria, then that's completely acceptable to discuss on the talk page. It does not belong at WP:AFD. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 14:56, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * 2-3 titles is not a "list" or even really a group, nor do these articles provide list-inclusion criteria (WP:LSC) which is a necessary part of substantiating the notability/verifiability of a list. At most, these articles might provide basis for an article about the cultural phenomenon of drones in movies, but then there would have to be evidence of sustained coverage. As for the requirement of having a discussion, this was done on the talk page and is being done here. Finally (and I forgot to mention this) there is a strong verifiability issue with nearly ever listing on the page (e.g., what is the source for Back to the Future II including a drone? The reference only states that is features "drone-like technology") FOARP (talk) 15:17, 11 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Multiple sources talk about drones in films as a group or set. They're not saying "this one other film", they're writing broadly and include multiple films. This list simply combines all groups or sets that have been discussed to date and adds more. You say that there is room for improvement, so it is unnecessary to engage in deletion per WP:BEFORE. You also say that a non-deletion discussion "is being done here", but it's hard to have that discussion when the thrust of this nomination is to wipe the topic off Wikipedia completely. What about withdrawing this nomination and starting a discussion on the talk page to implement certain inclusion criteria? Something like Back to the Future Part II does not have to stay, depending on the criteria. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 15:30, 11 February 2019 (UTC)


 * This list appears to be the result of going through movie reviews and listing every single one that has the word "drone" in it (see, e.g., the support for three randomly-selected items on the list here: 1 2 3 ). There is no sign that there is an actual grouping of films being dealt with here. The references provided do not support this topic as a list, something that requires list inclusion criteria - specifically, what belongs on the list and what does not. Without that all you've got here is a list compiled from original research. EDIT: this is basically like an "In Popular Culture" section for drones. FOARP (talk) 15:17, 11 February 2019 (UTC)


 * You listed multiple sources in your nomination that acknowledge drones in films have been discussed as a group or set. I've also added that per WP:NOTESAL, "Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable." If you think the inclusion criteria is too loose, then propose stricter criteria instead of throwing the baby out with the bathwater in pursuing complete deletion of this topic. Again, I ask, what about withdrawing the nomination and starting a discussion to cull the list based on specified criteria? Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 15:50, 11 February 2019 (UTC)


 * How about first actually providing evidence that there are, or could ever be, verifiable list inclusion criteria provided in independent, reliable sources (required per WP:LSC) for this list? My WP:BEFORE turned up nothing. Without that you end up with what you've got - a list of films that feature a drone in any scene, regardless of what the film is actually about. It's basically this but for drones. You have to have the "specified criteria" before you have the list. FOARP (talk) 16:04, 11 February 2019 (UTC)


 * How can we have a discussion about inclusion criteria if you won't withdraw for even a short time your nomination to unilaterally delete this? To use an example, with List of films with a 100% rating on Rotten Tomatoes, discussion led to listing only films that have a critics' consensus or at least 20 reviews. When it comes to this kind of topic, there will be a range of the common topics' relevance to the film. The listings here are simple in providing one citation per film. For some films, maybe there is only one citation at all. For others, maybe drones have been repeatedly mentioned in reviews, and that would give such a listing more weight. Or if a film is mentioned in a non-review and/or retrospective source, it would warrant more inclusion. There are a variety of ways we could go about it. I have no issue with shortening the list, but I oppose its complete deletion. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 16:13, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Another source here further validating the group/set: "Such is the premise of Gavin Hood’s Eye in the Sky, Andrew Niccol’s Good Kill, and Rick Rosenthal’s Drones... National Bird is not the first muckraking documentary on Washington’s drone wars. Robert Greenwald’s Unmanned, Tonje Schei’s Drone, and Madiha Tahrir’s Wounds of Waziristan have already shone much-needed light on how drone warfare really works." Thanks, Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 16:53, 11 February 2019 (UTC)


 * WP:AFD is not a unilateral process - this article will not be deleted simply because I nominated it, but only as the result of a consensus. List inclusion criteria have to be sourced in independent, reliable sources. They cannot simply be decided here through original research. Realistically speaking this means you need sources that list movies of this type stating why they're included, not merely discuss a few of them. The reason why list inclusion criteria are important is that it is required to prevent trivia lists being created out of original research. The sources you've provided do not produce any real criteria for forming a list on this subject, for example the source that lists what it describes as "muckraking documentar[ies] on Washington’s drone wars" would not support creating a list of films about drones, but instead a list of documentaries about drone warfare (which is not what this is). FOARP (talk) 20:39, 11 February 2019 (UTC)


 * By nominating the article for deletion and refusing to withdraw, per WP:BEFORE, your essential stance is that the article cannot at all be improved rather than deleted. So because this, it is hard to assume good faith in discussing any kind of list inclusion criteria with you. This is evidenced by your dismissal of the article by The Nation that names seven films related to drones. If you feel that documentaries need to be strongly delineated from narrative films, then why not two distinct sections under the same broad scope of films featuring drones? You're saying that cannot and should not be done? That there cannot be an article in any sense related to films and drones? Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 20:53, 11 February 2019 (UTC)


 * This is not about what I feel or don't feel. This is about what is supported by the references. There is no supported list inclusion criteria for this list (required per WP:LSC), which is why it is how it is - a list of trivia. Your saying that you think the nation supports a list of documentaries about drone warfare, but that's clearly not what this list is. FOARP (talk) 08:11, 12 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep per Erik's demonstration that drone films have been discussed as a set or group in reliable and independent sources. Edison (talk) 22:38, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete No clear criteria for inclusion makes this liable to be WP:INDISCRIMINATE and fixate on every small appearance of a drone in every film ever made, which is unencyclopedic. List of films about drones would probably be an actual, notable topic to base a list on. Otherwise, the discussion about drones in films in reliable sources can be relocated to the article about drones, or perhaps an article about drones in fiction written in prose.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 01:55, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep as is a notable topic for a list but sharpen the criteria to films that are mainly about drones rather than any with a brief inclusion of drones because with the increasing proliferation of drone use there will be a vast number of films including drones except period pieces, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 19:33, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. Per WP:NOTESAL, there is "no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists". E.g. "List of drones" is a WP topic, and "List of films" is a WP topic, but there is no concenus on whether "List of films featuring drones" is a topic.  On the basis that this is a decently constructed list and referenced (and interesting), I would keep it.  I would like even more if the definition was tightened up, but I can live with this. Britishfinance (talk) 19:55, 18 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Note. I just placed a request for this discussion to be close here. Thank you all! &#8213; Matthew J. Long -Talk-☖  21:16, 18 February 2019 (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.