Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of films receiving six or more Academy Awards


 * 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. Both sides have made excellent arguments, but neither seems to establish definitively whether six is significant enough to include a cutoff at that level. Summary of "delete" !votes: Six is just an arbitrary number; the relevant information is already included at List of Academy Award-winning films. Summary of "keep" !votes: The arguments in the beginning were largely based on WP:USEFUL or WP:NOHARM. However, at the end, users made strong arguments referring to the consensus on the talk page to have the cutoff at six, as well as the inevitability of a cutoff for any list of "notable" things. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 00:02, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

List of films receiving six or more Academy Awards

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete - list has a completely arbitrary inclusion criterion. Nothing to indicate that the topic of the list, Films that have specifically won more than five Oscars, is the subject of reliable sources that establish its notability (and before the deluge of links begins, I am very aware that "films that have won a lot of Oscars" is certainly discussed in reliable sources. That isn't the question. The question is whether winning more than five is). The list used to be for films with eight or more Oscars and was changed to the current six. There has been subsequent discussion about reducing the threshold to five, further demonstrating the utter arbitrariness of the subject matter. Why six and not eight? Why six and not five? Why five and not three? There are hundreds of films released every year that are eligible for Oscar consideration. That any film wins even a single Oscar is extraordinary. That a film won six rather than five or three or whatever arbitrary number someone settles on is trivia. Otto4711 (talk) 19:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep that is absolutely no reason to delete the list. Six is an arbitrary number? Well, we have plenty of lists that have a cutoff to keep it from being too long. If you want, we can get to work and make this a list of all those with two or more or even every one. As far as I know, there are no other lists that include the big winners at the Oscars, so it is necessary to keep this widely-reportred information. Reywas92 Talk  19:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * As noted, there is already a complete list of Oscar winners. There is also List of Big Five Academy Award winners and nominees which covers most of the same territory as this list (although it needs a great deal of work). Otto4711 (talk) 20:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I would also note that the existence of other possibly bad lists does not serve to support the existence of this list. Otto4711 (talk) 21:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The Big Five list is not even comprable to the number won. List of Academy Award-winning films would only be any good if it is changed into a sortable table, which I could do, the only problem being its immense length. Reywas92 Talk  02:40, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Per nomination. Nothing special about the number. As the nominator pointed out, why not a list of films with 5 Oscar wins or 8 or 7? I mean, the 1 and only source used in the article even uses films with 5 Oscar wins. As for other articles listing winners, I guess you missed List of Academy Award-winning films (which includes every film that has won an Academy Award and how many nominations they got). So this list is redundant of that too and thus another reason to delete.  TJ   Spyke   19:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, which states everything that's wrong here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eusebeus (talk • contribs)
 * Keep. The use of an arbitrary cut off point in such a list is standard practice. See, for example, List of oldest people and List of tallest buildings, both of which also have an arbitrary cut-off point, and are generally considered acceptable articles. The reflection of the cut-off point in the name is unusual and may enhance the arbitrary feel of the list, but a simple rename to List of films receiving the largest number of Academy Awards would solve this issue. JulesH (talk) 21:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep It's useful to have a select list, and the number has to be set somewhere, & gives a suitable short short list. Useful is enough of a reason for a list. Sourcing is trivial: counting to 6 is not OR. DGG (talk) 21:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Being useful is not a reason to keep a article (see WP:USEFUL). Do you have another argument to keep it since that was your only reason?  TJ   Spyke   21:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It is reason enough for a list of notable things. DGG (talk) 00:09, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep&mdash;As the number of awards handed out is also arbitrary, I don't see a cut-off value of 6 as a significant issue. It has clearly been chosen to keep the list size manageable.&mdash;RJH (talk) 22:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  —PC78 (talk) 22:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, per WP:USEFUL: "This list brings together related topics in X and is useful for navigating that subject" TheWilyFox (talk) 23:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Except it's not useful at all and is covered in more detail at List of Academy Award-winning films. Care to try again?  TJ   Spyke   23:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It's useful precisely because it has more detail than List of Academy Award-winning films. Is there a size limit to the table format? TheWilyFox (talk) 00:13, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That list is absolutely not in more detail because it does not clearly show those that won the most. Reywas92 Talk  02:40, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It does if you click on that little arrow next to "awards". If you can actually make a table out of the big list I agree that this one will be redundant. TheWilyFox (talk) 03:20, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, if you are making a big table, can you please go with the highest common denominator and include the extra information that this one has? TheWilyFox (talk) 03:23, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I was saying that List of Academy Award-winning films does not have more detail; there are no little arrows there. I have started to tableize the list at User:Reywas92/List of Academy Award-winning films. Can we please put the deletion on hold until I get that done? I will add that further information and perhaps take that huge list to FLC. I just hope sorting won't be impossible with over 1000 films total in the table. Reywas92 Talk  03:41, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - per above users. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 23:47, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * So you admit it's not useful and already covered at List of Academy Award-winning films.  TJ   Spyke   23:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I have to agree with the nominator. There is no explanation why six is a significant level for the number of Academy Awards that a film can win before its Oscar sweep is considered notable. Furthermore, List of Academy Award-winning films puts the subject in proper perspective by comparing them against the other films that won fewer Oscars. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:33, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You are right in the second part, but I only see that valid if the full list is sortable. Let's make a deal: I'll start tableizing from the top and you from the bottom and soon enough this six and up list will be redundant. Reywas92 Talk  02:40, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete (just wait until tabelizing is done) Once the trivial matter of tabelizing the existing list of Academy Award winners is completed, it's no longer neccesary to have an arbitrary cutoff. That list has far more information in it and when it is done, it's also easily searchable. - Mgm|(talk) 16:36, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Over the years, this article has gotten more high-tech-- it's a sortable table today-- but it still doesn't tell us much. I can see, at a glance, that Ben-Hur won eleven Academy Awards.  I just can't tell what the other ten of them were for. Mandsford (talk) 23:02, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you could fit in five more columns for each of the big five. You'd only need a yes or no in each box. TheWilyFox (talk) 06:33, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The article provides encyclopedic details on the subject. Unless we list every film that has ever won an Academy Award, any cutoff can be called "arbitrary". Alansohn (talk) 06:02, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * We already do list every film that has ever won an Academy Award. Otto4711 (talk) 18:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete: Why not 6, 5 or 10? Where did the number 6 even come from? Ryan 4314   (talk) 18:31, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - There is no doubt about the amount of coverage devoted to winning large numbers of Oscars including "sweeping" the Oscars. The only thing at issue is what number should constitute the cutoff for what is considered "large".  That is a discussion for the article talk page and not a topic for AFD. -- Whpq (talk) 16:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. And exactly that has indeed already been discussed at the article's Talk Page ... not only once, but twice.  (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC))


 * Merge Winning a large number of awards is indeed notable, but perhaps not notable enough for a separate list. Thus, my personal preference would be to have all the content in one article - List of Academy Award-winning films - with a table at the top for films that won the most awards. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Its handy and easy look at. Oniongas (talk) 10:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - This article should be kept, for all the reasons already mentioned. The issue of what to use as a cut-off point had been discussed at the article's Talk Page.  See Talk:List of films receiving six or more Academy Awards ... and ... Talk:List of films receiving six or more Academy Awards.  Also ... please see my Comment immediately below.  Thanks.   (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC))
 * Comment: The original post of the nominating editor (Otto4711) is utterly ridiculous. Every list has a cut-off point.  Obviously.  We can ask why the "list of oldest people" cuts-off at age 100 and not at age 99?  There must be a cut-off point at some point.  And the cut-off point in this list is not arbitrary.  As the Talk Page discussions of the article indicate ... reducing the cut-off point would essentially double the size of the list ... thus, diluting its value.  Winning a "lot" of Oscars is clearly notable.  Picking the number 6 (instead of 5) makes a great deal of sense and is hardly arbitrary.  The logic goes like this ... if I must spell it out for you ... "Very few films in history (namely, 34) have won a lot of Oscars (where lot is defined at 6 or more).  However, quite a large number of films, relatively speaking, have won 5 Oscars.  In fact, if we factor in the winners at 5 Oscars, we double the size of what the list would be at 6 Oscars.  Hence ... winning 6 is quite a feat and quite notable ... relatively speaking, winning 5, not so much."  Thanks.   (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC))


 * Lean towards delete Why six? I see in the article's talk page that the number has changed over time.  If it's an arbitrary number than the list should be deleted, but if its notable in external sources as some sort of magic number indicating something special (as opposed to listing 5-and-up or 7-and-up) than it should be kept. Currently there's no discussion that shows why 6 is that magic number. As a second proposal: getting rid of only the winners of six would produce a list of 25. Then, the list could be renamed to reflect something like "top 25 winners at the oscars". This is another arbitrary number, but its more round and seems a much more suitable cutoff place.  Them  From  Space  23:29, 24 April 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.