Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of films featuring time loops


 * 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. There's a clear consensus not to delete this. There's disagreement here about the exact content, the correct title, and even the possibility of a split, but those are all normal editorial decisions which should be worked out on the article's talk page. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:42, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

List of films featuring time loops

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Every time travel film that isn't about travel to a distant galaxy or alternate universe involves a causal loop or a grandfather paradox but few actually involve a time loop. The citations do not mention time loops with fifteen exceptions, that would happily remain if the other list entries weren't repeatedly re-listed. Attempts to trim the list to films with citations that do mention time loops keep failing due to editors putting general time-travel movies in the list whether or not there's a citation that they features a time loop. See previous extensive discussion about the inclusion criteria. The page's entire content is already included in list of time travel works of fiction. The page's title does not match the contents of the page, and efforts to fix the page are repeatedly thwarted. Since other methods to fix the page (talk, merge) failed, and since all the content is available under the correct title on a different list, the page should be deleted. BrightRoundCircle (talk)


 * See also quality and relevance of citations discussion. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 10:43, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  Musa  Talk  09:45, 10 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep, no deletion rationale given clean up is not a reason for deletion. Most of the sources direct stated that the film is a time loop film. A time loop is when a character loops from the past to a current point sometimes repeatedly. I'm afraid you making up your reason the article is properly sourced. The idea of this list came from and can be expanded even further.  Valoem   talk   contrib  12:30, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: The article time loop has two sources (which somewhat are more reliable than clickbait articles, I'd say) that differ with your definition of time loop. Your definition does not differentiate "time loop" from any other type of time travel, which is at the heart of the topic, and this has been extensively discussed. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 18:53, 10 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment:, the topic appears notable. If the heart of the matter is strictly about dealing with entries that do not belong, then this is not a reason for deletion. The page history does not seem to show edit warring over adding and removing bad entries. Why can't good oversight be exercised? You could post at WT:FILM asking other editors to put it on their watchlist and monitor for bad entries. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 12:39, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: See Valoem's reply. Despite references defining a time loop with a specific meaning, many of the article's editors insist that any time travel is a time loop, making the maintenance of the article... difficult, and making it no different than list of time travel works of fiction. The overlap was the reason for a merge, but the merge was reverted. I have no issue with fixing the article, if only other editors would agree that reliable third party sources should be the deciding factor in what is and isn't a time loop. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 18:53, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I would endorse limiting entries to reliable sources that specifically say "time loop". What films are repeatedly being added that do not have this sourcing? It's understandable that novice editors try to help out with the list by contributing, but they may not realize the appropriate inclusion criteria to follow. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 19:08, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I reviewed your table on the talk page. Would it help to have two lists, this one and one called list of films featuring causal loops, with films listed accordingly? Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 19:56, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep but... consider that "time loop" as used in common speech/entertainment circles generally include casual loops and grandfather paradox, among others. Because it is sometimes hard to make that distinction to the average movie goer, and that certainly the topic of films that contain any type of this loop or paradox seem notable, I would recommend that a column be added to the table to indicate which type of time loop is being witnessed by the work (which may be more than one at times) and just adjust the lede to include that it's not just limited to the explicit time loop definition simply due to common use diffusion of the term. --M ASEM (t) 20:02, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Good point about common use. I like the idea of adding a column to sort. I suppose two major categories would be "Multiple Loops" and "Causal Loop"? Not sure if there is overlap of these or some other distinction. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 20:09, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Based on this discussion, I think all the films (as best as I know) exhibit one or more of time loops (of the Groundhog Day variety) where no paradox necessarily happens, causal loops/bootstrap paradox (12 Monkeys), and grandfather paradox (Looper); there might be more but these seem what can be sourced. If a film has two or more of these, both could be listed in this column. It also helps to beg if some films like Run Lola Run should really be on this list (at least when I last watched that, that was more about alternate timelines, and not time travel) --M ASEM (t) 21:15, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. The sourcing is pretty terrible, and it seems to be based on original research.  But that's not really a reason to delete an article.  Though most of the hits on Google seem like useless clickbait, it's a topic that is covered in reliable sources; for example,  from the San Francisco Chronicle.  If I can stand to trudge through more clickbait, I'll continue searching.  Maybe we can get this article cleaned up and better sourced.  I'm leaning toward keep right now. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:29, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Rename List of films involving time travel and merge with List of time travel works of fiction. I don't think that this subset of the genre requires its own list, while at the same time the genre should have a standalone one. (Of course, someone could just go back in time before the creation of this list and ...) Clarityfiend (talk) 00:04, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: This was my preferred solution but the merge has been reverted. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 10:27, 11 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep The list could use clean up but the topic is too notable to not have an article. Dimadick (talk) 20:49, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually now that I think about it, this "list of X that is Y" (list of time travel films that have time loops) blatantly fails the non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations policy and is considered non-notable and should be deleted. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 18:01, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * BrightRoundCircle you are completely wrong did you read the above where it says Wikipedia is not a directory? Those eight WP:ISNOT applies only to corporations and organizations, not the arts. It also directly states that it only applies to directories which do not have Wikipedia articles. It is to prevent advertising, not listing. You have created three articles in your 8 years here, I would recommend focusing more on content creation instead of deletion. If you lack the resources there are many that can help. Valoem   talk   contrib  00:04, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Whoa whoa hold on there, getting personal, that's against Wikipedia policy. Let's look at what WP:ISNOT applies to:


 * Wikipedia is not a directory

Wikipedia encompasses many lists of links to articles within Wikipedia that are used for internal organization or to describe a notable subject. In that sense, Wikipedia functions as an index or directory of its own content. However, Wikipedia is not a directory of everything in the universe that exists or has existed. Please see Alternative outlets for alternatives. Wikipedia articles are not:

6. Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations, such as "people from ethnic / cultural / religious group X employed by organization Y" or "restaurants specializing in food type X in city Y". Cross-categories like these are not considered sufficient basis to create an article, unless the intersection of those categories is in some way a culturally significant phenomenon. See also Overcategorization for this issue in categories.


 * The policy specifically names stand-alone lists. If you want to insult me personally, go right ahead. If you think my editing history makes me unworthy of fixing an article with bad citations, that's okay. You can have your own opinions. But you can't have your own facts. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 14:07, 14 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep but delete non-referenced, faulty entries (if other editors readd those invite them to the talk page - maybe it's a good idea to make a [sub]entry for each film that's getting readded frequently to discuss whether or not it features a time loop). --Fixuture (talk) 12:18, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * That would be great except it's original research. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 14:12, 14 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment Two things first I am glad you pasted the paragraph as it confirms my position, the line "Wikipedia encompasses many lists of links to articles within Wikipedia that are used for internal organization or to describe a notable subject" which is what this list is. It goes on to say "Wikipedia functions as an index or directory of its own content" in other words a list which links to existing articles on Wikipedia is appropriate, which is what this is. The section you highlighted, Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations does not apply. If the article was titled List of films filmed in Nebraska featuring time loops then yes cross-categorization applies, but can still be allowed if deemed culturally notable, but that is not the title. List of films featuring time loops has no cross-categories.
 * I did not see this but apparently your argument is the list could be retitled "List of time travel films that have time loops". This is the most ridiculous argument I've ever heard based on this logic we should delete all lists as they could be titled as such. The article List of time travel works of fiction could be retitled "List of works which are fictional featuring time travel" could it not?
 * Secondly, what personal attack do you see? I advised you to work more on content creation and said if you need help doing so other editors would more than gladly help you, it is no more of an attack than your nomination of this article. Valoem   talk   contrib  21:51, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:42, 15 November 2015 (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.