Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of films in which an attempt is made to guess a password


 * 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  d elete. - Mailer Diablo 09:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

List of films in which an attempt is made to guess a password

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Wikipedia articles are not lists or repositories of loosely associated topics. "Guessing a password" is not a notable enough feature of these films (or films in general) to justify an article or list devoted to the subject. Trivial listcruft. Croxley 00:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * delete The present article is a trivial and selective list of some well known films only. DGG 00:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Way too trivial. 23skidoo 01:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete New England... clam chowder (white). JuJube 01:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as trivial and indiscriminate and lacking any context. Otto4711 02:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete 'Cause this article is trivial. Daniel5127 | Talk 03:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. - 71.232.29.141 03:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Trivial, non encylopedic--Dacium 04:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete An unencyclopaedic criterion for a list. Jules1975 10:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * IFF a sourced, externally verifiable, Wikipedia:Attributed article could be written on "the movie cliche fo guessing passwords", this content (with context and sources added) could be merged into said article. Failing that, delete as a list which links minor occurances in movies with no justification why the minor occurances is important and notable apart from being an obstacle in the plot, and why the minor occurances should be linked, as they have nothing in common apart from being "person sits at screen... types... curses... types... curses... types... grins and moves onto the next plot element". -- saberwyn 10:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep From WP:LIST: "The list may be a valuable information source. This is particularly the case for a structured list. Examples would include lists organized chronologically, grouped by theme, or annotated lists." What's trivial to you is not trivial to others. Passwords are central to computer security and people's behavior and attitudes regarding their use is an important and active area of research. This list is useful in understanding how such attitudes develop and would be very difficult for a scholar to recreate. It's subject is well defined and narrowly focused. The referenced works are their own sources. Anyone can view the film to verify it contains the type of scene described. --agr 12:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep It is a good idea and would be interesting info to have, perhaps including info on the specifics of each movie would make it better?--E tac 13:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as the very definition of an indiscriminate list. "It's interesting" or "it's useful" is not a reason to keep.  Plus, it's not interesting or useful.- Dmz5  *Edits**Talk* 17:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Trivial information, incomplete and generally seems like it was just a quick idea article, non-encyclopedic. Telly  addict  17:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. A list of movies whose only common thread is that at some point someone tried to guess a password?  Arkyan 17:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete far too trivial.-- danntm T C 18:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete The entire premise for this "list" is entirely indescriminate. Invites similar lists that I won't suggest out of fear of their creation. I agree that as "interesting" and "useful" as this may be to some, those are not reasons to keep. "Trivia" (which is in many ways the antithesis of "encyclopedic") can be interesting and an ad in the phone book can be useful, but they are not encyclopedic. Agent 86 19:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete I do find it interesting (though not particularly useful) but it's pretty much a trivia list. GassyGuy 19:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete overly trivial. Kolindigo 19:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per arguments above. An article on the cliché of password-guessing in film, wherein the password is usually guessed seconds before some tragic event occurs (nuclear explosion, the death of the protagonist and/or his/her lover and/or children), may be encyclopedic, but this list isn't. -- Black Falcon 19:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per all of the above delete reasons. - Denny 23:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete-Trivial list. Can't even really be made into a category. --TeckWiz Parlate Contribs@ 00:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 'Delete - per nom. List is hardly notable. Would probably approach fancruft if the list were truly fleshed out with today's technical movies. Ronbo76 01:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, as per nomination. Hoverfish Talk 07:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Move to Password cracking in film (or Password cracking in fiction), expand info on the significance of the password cracked (or attacked) in each, and Keep. Culturally significant. bd2412  T 12:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No offense, but you declaring it to be culturally significant does not make it so. That is the entire crux of this AfD.  You say it is, I say it isn't.- Dmz5  *Edits**Talk* 00:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong delete who on earth created a list like this?. Isuggest we keep the lists to a minumumErnst Stavro Blofeld 20:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Move per User:BD2412's reasoning. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 17:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Move/Restructure per bd2412 and saberwyn.—Carolfrog 04:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete No need for such a list like that.--JForget 00:38, 28 February 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.