Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of films featuring pugs


 * 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   delete.  Sandstein  07:32, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

List of films featuring pugs

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This article is fails WP:N as its subject has not recieved significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. None of the appearances of pugs have been verified, and the article as a whole appears to be listcruft, particularly points 1, 2, 3, 4, and 8. The related category, which is subject to a broader criteria for inclusion, is also up for deletion.  Them From  Space  01:59, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Symbol delete vote.svg|15px]] Delete — Usless list. Not verified. ContinueWithCaution (talk) 03:54, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - even with references it would be useless. Unless we want a page for every breed. JohnBlackburne (talk) 04:41, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - listcruft --Pboyd04 (talk) 05:35, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: A list of films "featuring pugs" is not an appropriate topic for a stand-alone list because it would essentially be a directory of tangentially-connected films. It is not appropriate to lump together on this basis a film that is primarily about a pug with one in which a pug appears on-screen for 5 seconds. A list of films about dogs with defined inclusion criteria may be viable; however, a list that includes any film in which a pug appeared on-screen in a secondary role (or perhaps even only for a few seconds) is not. –B LACK F ALCON  (T ALK ) 09:34, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I love the thought that someone took the time to research this, but I can't see any reason to have a list about pugs. There are a lot of animal species out there, is there anything particularly significant about pugs? DRosin (talk) 11:09, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - This might also fall under WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Maybe not, but even then it's non-notable and unreferenced. I appreciate the work that's went into it, but what possible benfift could this article be to anyone in any situation? Lord Spongefrog,  (Talk to me, or I'll eat your liver!)  11:40, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as an indiscriminate and pointless list. J I P  | Talk 18:23, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:50, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:50, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Snow Delete in agreement with nominator. Even were the list to be verified, it would still be useless. Pugs?  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 23:19, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * delete per above comments. Looks like almost pure OR. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:27, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep/upmerge to List of fictional dogs. This is perfectly acceptable list information but the present list is too narrowly focussed presently. As part of a broader list it's fine and delineating by breeds is quite common in the dog industry. Nom means well but looking for alternatives to deleting likely should have been explored on this 5-day-old article. -- Banj e  b oi   14:06, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Some of the things listed at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Films_featuring_pugs should be moved to the list.  I don't recall Dune having a dog in it, but its been awhile since I read the books or saw the film.  WP:LIST "An Index of articles page presents an alphabetical list of articles related to the subject of the index."  I think its fine for a list article.  There are many people who love dogs, and they'd like to see how many times this type of dog was in a major film, it'd help them.  If you aren't interested in that sort of thing, you won't find your way to this article anyway, and thus never even know it existed at all.  Wikipedia has no limit on space.  You gain absolutely nothing by deleting something others might find useful.    D r e a m Focus  19:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so many useful things that do not belong in an encyclopedia are excluded. For example, a list of all phone numbers in a particular city would be useful, but is not included because Wikipedia is not a directory. Likewise, while a list of all films in which pugs make an appearance (said appearance ranging from a few seconds to most of the length of the film) could be useful to some people, it does not change the fact that Wikipedia is not a directory for trivially-connected films. –B LACK F ALCON  (T ALK ) 19:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Black Falcon, don't even bother to change his opinion. Dream Focus wants anything and everything kept, even if it's not suitable for this site. If Dream Focus had his way, there would be no guidelines and any garbage would be suitable here. RobJ1981 (talk) 07:32, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Focus on the discussion, not the individual. And no, I don't want everything to exist.  I just don't see anything wrong with this article, and there nothing gained by deleting it.  You apparently want to delete something because you don't like it, considering it garbage.   D r e a m Focus  12:18, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * For "I [just] don't see anything wrong with this article" see WP:NOHARM, and no one has said they don't like it. As for people who love dogs, I'm sure there are places for them on the internet, but Wikipedia is not one of them. JohnBlackburne (talk) 13:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:NOHARM is now an essay. It isn't a policy you must follow, nor is it even a suggested guideline.  Just an opinion page, and nothing more.  To delete an article you must state a legitimate reason for it to be deleted.  It doesn't violate any policy, and there is nothing gained by its destruction.   D r e a m Focus  17:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that John was only referencing the argument laid out at WP:NOHARM, and not attempting to invoke it as some sort of "higher word" (WP:NOHARM has been an essay for as long as I've been aware of it). However, just because an argument is not part of a policy or guideline does not mean that it should be ignored (the strength of an argument is judged on its own merits, independent of where the argument is presented); for instance, I support most of the principles contained at Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, but I oppose making it a guideline or policy for the simple reason that it would be practically impossible to implement or enforce. –B LACK F ALCON  (T ALK ) 18:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is no higher word, there's just us discussing it. I was pointing out the page titled Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, which includes the WP:NOHARM text which I thought relevant. The essay at WP:HARM is something else, specifically about biographies. As for reasons for deletion both WP:N and WP:LC apply. JohnBlackburne (talk) 19:07, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Pugs? How about dalmatians? Or golden retrievers? Or Siamese cats? How about car models, or brands of beer, or musical instruments? This is just unmitigated trivia: WP:LISTCRUFT at its finest. Mangoe (talk) 20:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - I created this page because it was suggested several times in the discussion about deleting Category:Films featuring pugs. I have found references and I am expanding the list. Given time I expect that this will become a featured list. Please reconsider deleting this important article and give it a chance to grow. Dolores Luxedo (talk) 23:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Looking at that discussion there are three calls for listify. But one questions whether it's worth doing, one just agrees, and the third says it should be a list of all dogs in films. A fourth person gives reasons why it should not happen at all. JohnBlackburne (talk) 18:38, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete or merge to larger dog list of some kind. Artw (talk) 18:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Last night my wife cooked the most delightful meal for our friends Artie and Wanda. They came round with a bottle of fine wine, and we had the most lovely evening. One of the subjects that came up for discussion around our dinner table was this very list, the category that inspired the list, and the ensuing deletion discussion. (By the way, I think it is pertinent to mention that I created the original category (now deleted), and that me and my wife are the proud owners of a number of pugs. We love the little scamps!). Anyway, I mentioned how the consensus from the deletion discussion for the category seemed to be to listify, and user:Dolores Luxedo was kind enought to do that. And now someone has nominated the list for deletion! It seems that any attempt to list pugs in movies will die a death of a thousand cuts! My wife agreed, and thought it was outrageous - how one can recommend that a list be created, and then remove the list! Artie, however (we always tend to disagree, but we're the best of friends) said that both the category and the list have to be considered as individual and separate objects, and the arguments for their deletion must, by definition, take place separately. Wanda (we call her 'the microphone' because of her funny fuzzy hair) said that while this may be the case, that doesn't mean that the list should necessarily be removed, that it contributes greatly to pug related articles in this encyclopaedia, that, with the exception of the Lassie movies and possibly golden retrievers, pugs have more 'film time' than any other breed of dog. Not only this, but if the list is comprehensive and full referenced, it becomes an invaluable resource for anyone making a study of such a thing. The microphone teaches media studies at a local college, and she said that the very nature of the list and the arguments for deletion would make a fascinating lesson! I have to say I agree with the microphone...  this is a well reseached list, and valuable for the study of pugs in movies. Either way, I hope you come to a good decision. Hope you're all well, sorry I haven't been around much recently. Things have been pretty hectic in everyday life. See ya around, Hands of gorse, heart of steel (talk) 12:55, 4 December 2009 (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.