Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of films featuring the French Foreign Legion


 * 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. Pascal.Tesson 14:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

List of films featuring the French Foreign Legion

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Films feature everything and anything. There is nothing especially notable about these three groups appearing in a film, especially if the film is not concerning them. Bulldog123 18:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. These sorts of lists are not appropriate to Wikipedia, though I am happy to see them elsewhere. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 19:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and please see the prior discussion for the USMC article: Articles for deletion/List of films featuring United States Marines. Note how the other two lists say at the top:  "This is a list of films featuring the French Foreign Legion in which the French Foreign Legion is portrayed either through its plot or by a main character."  I think that is clearly a statement that simple appearance is not sufficient to be added to the list.   In addition, you need to actually add the AFD notice to each page.  Failure to do is a bad idea.  FrozenPurpleCube 19:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. I have added AfD notices to the two other lists. PrimeHunter 23:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete and categorize, listcruft. Realkyhick 19:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete French Foreign Legion and IRA lists unless brought somewhere near the standard of the USMC list before the end of this AFD. The USMC list was greatly improved in the course of the last AFD discussion so if the desire to keep the other two is strong enough then the work can be done. Otto4711 19:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep all reasonable articles with appropriate lists, useful for information as well as navigation. The ones I know seem well characterised and the criterion is clear: either the plot of a film is mainly about one of these or it isn't.DGG (talk) 20:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep all per DGG. The USMC is a good example that more lists should follow. Clear criteria. The other two should stay because content needing clean-up/development is not a valid reason to delete. They are relatively young (started in May). The idea of a 'clean-up or else' deadline is wrong.Canuckle 21:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * ps a link to Lists Canuckle 21:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep all as per DGG and Canuckle. Three articles written by different authors shouldn't be bunched together for deletion-- talk about a list of indiscriminate information!  However, I've looked at all three articles.  I agree with Canuckle that the USMC article should be the model for the others.  And I agree with Bulldog to the extent that these should be limited to those films (like D.I.) that are about the subject, and exclude those where only a passing reference is made to a character's association with the Legion, the IRA or the Marines. Mandsford 02:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Question/Comment Mainly to everyone who put "per DGG." I hate to use a "What about X?" point here, but given the exact reasoning for keep, it should be mentioned. So, as long as we can make a bullet-list (as these lists are) with a clear criterion that is navigable (what list isn't?), then Carlos' Films that feature draperies is a "reasonable article" per your definition of a reasonable article. Correct? In which case, what isn't a legitimate "list if films featuring" list? Is everything that can be sourced by (lets say) timecode from the movie legitimate? Bulldog123 13:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No, it's not. It's obvious to me that drapery is something of minor importance, it's a piece of scenery. A movie about these given organizations is not.  Frankly, I wonder why such an inaccurate comparison is being made.  Do you not realize how obviously preposterous the suggestion that draperies are as important a thematic detail as the USMC, the FFL, or the IRA is?  FrozenPurpleCube 19:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not preposterous at all if you want to consider movies where props are essential to the plot. Here, we actually don't even know if these institutions are essential to the plot. For that very reason the list was entitled featuring instead of about. Bulldog123 02:29, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * "A movie about" is not "featuring". I have reservations with "films about", but this goes much further. "Featuring" is a pretty all encompassing word one quick shot of people drilling in uniform and bang-o there you have it, instant featuring and categorization, at least the draperies and their transformation into clothing were part of the story in my examples, here anything that merely mentions, alludes to, the USMC, or the other nominees is includable and what, then, pray tell do those films have in common other than the triviality to which this category caters? Nada. Carlossuarez46 21:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete all films that "feature" something is hardly definitional; what's next Films that feature draperies so that Gone with the Wind and The Sound of Music can have yet another meaningless category added to them? Carlossuarez46 04:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That does not logically follow. There is a different between an organization and a piece of scenery.  Trying to link the two as if they were at all similar in terms of importance is an inaccuracy.  I'm baffled that you would even try such a preposterous argument. FrozenPurpleCube 19:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete all - While the USMC article does look better than the other 2, I think all of them should be replaced with a category.  - Category:Films featuring USMC or something similar.   Just adding the a short description and the release date doesn't warrant a list, in my opinion Corpx 04:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete all and categorize is an excellent idea, the list are loosely associated btut they would work as categories. Crazysuit 05:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - I have an intense dislike for anything that reeks of trivia in an encyclopedia; these three do. THe articles should go; a category may be worthwhile. --Storm Rider (talk) 05:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep all. This is not trivia, and these lists are all useful.--Mantanmoreland 21:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete and replace with categories, much easier to use. --Joffeloff 22:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete -- I think there would have been less opposition if the nominator hadn't included the USMC list here, because it's better than the other two. Having said that, I don't think the topic is notable enough for a list, at best it could be part of a larger "films featuring the military" list, which is more of an actual genre. Saikokira 19:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per SlamDiego.  J- stan  Talk 01:36, 31 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.