Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of films set in the 1960s


 * 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 all. Of the four "keeps", two give no reason for retention. The "deletes" are more compelling, based in policy rather than "it is useful". Neil  ╦  09:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

List of films set in the 1960s

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Purely an indiscriminate list of loosely associated films. I am also nominating these for deletion:

Also per precedent. Sr13 03:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete as loosely associated topic per nom. Could be hard to verify too. Ten Pound Hammer  • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 03:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete all -- WP:NOT Loosely associated topics. Saikokira 03:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per list of loosely associated topics.  Maybe a category would work Corpx 05:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Geez, is it list-deletion-week or something? First off all, lists and categories have different purposes and the existence of one is never a good argument for deleting the other (see also Categories, lists, and series boxes). These articles are not "loosely associated", they have a very clear, easy to verify (how can it be hard to verify this?) and in many cases easy to reference connection between them. Yes these lists might get big, but then they can easily be split up further. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 08:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep It is so much easier to repeat the same argument for deletion than to give an adequate defense, that one might be excused for thinking that there is an effort to overwhelm the defenders of lists. As I assume GF, I urge the noms to not encourage such a mistaken impression, and to proceed in a more reasonable way, as I am sure they want a good discussion on each one of them. (I am about to raise the question on the WP:AfD talk page) Things are tightly associated by being produced at the same time  -- or by the same author, or producer, or on the same subject, or using the same cultural references.  These are all about he same general cultural reference, a specific period in american life. The films are in general set there not as an indiscriminate or trivial choice by the director, they are set there because of presumed public interest in the period, or interest by those in the same generation as the characters portrayed, or as comments about the period. All of these are reasonable, non-indiscriminate associations. the list should be expanded somewhat with available information, such as the particular year or years when relevant.     DGG (talk) 17:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per all uses above. What about films spanning multiple decades? James Luftan 17:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * per routine practice with everything else, we either include in the predominant one or it more than one place--or--if there are many--we might need additional articles.   DGG (talk) 23:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - I am not convinced that the precedent about whether 1930s nostalgia films existed as a genre is sufficient to delete a list of films set in the 19X0's; it seems to require an expansion of the precedent to more than it stands for, but this isn't a law courts so precedents are worth what you want them to be. Moving to the matter at hand, other than the temporal setting these have little in common - 1968 was a heck of a lot different than 1961 for starters; presumably many films made in the 1960's and set in the (then) "present" and should be includable, and even films made pre-1960's that were futuristic could qualify. Carlossuarez46 22:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * it is possible that yet additional articles would be justified, but I think this could be dealt with by subarticles.DGG (talk) 23:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment/Question. Would this work as a category? James Luftan 01:57, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I think so Corpx 18:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletions.   -- the wub  "?!"  13:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep Bryan Seecrets 15:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I opposed the deletion of List of films set in the 1930s as a Strong Keep. What I see here is that people have a problem with the concept of listing films as being set in a distinct era; and that no possible amount of editing would render it to be acceptable.  Cpt. Morgan is right, this has been list deletion week at Wikipedia.  The 30s are gone, 60s, 70s and 80s are sharing the same guillotine.  I don't think that deletion is the answer.
 * "JFK" is not a 60s film. On the other hand, "Austin Powers" would be.  And the 1967 of "Austin Powers" is far different than the contemporary 1967 of "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner".   I see no problem in grouping together films that have, in common, their setting in a particular era and the accompanying costuming, props, dialogue, etc.  However, students of film generally do not waste their time on the Internet (not when there are so many great films to watch), so we rarely hear from them.  Wikipedia's film articles are, for the most part, written and edited by people who have little appreciation for the cinema.  Mandsford 00:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. A highly intelligible criterion and one quite useful, for instance, in researching how the 1960s are presented in film.  However it could be better organized and more complete; those are not, however, deletable offenses. RandomCritic 01:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep or convert into a category. --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 19:23, 1 August 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.