Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of films with a twist ending


 * 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 09:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

List of films with a twist ending

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete - grouping films by what sort of ending they have is indiscriminate. The films have nothing in common other than a style of ending, making this a repository of loosely-associated topics. Otto4711 03:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions.   -- SkierRMH 23:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions.   -- SkierRMH 23:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete what's a twist? (Other than going to a M. Night Shyamalan film expecting to be entertained?) JuJube 06:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Not verifiable and open to interpretation. Almost every story must have a 'twist' other wise there is no point in telling the end as everyone would guess it.--Dacium 06:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete yet another "List of films with/featuring/involving/by whatever" that amounts to an indiscriminate list. Also subject to POV interpretations. Arkyan 18:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Whether certain endings are considered twists or not would be too open to interpretation. SubSeven 20:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Please stop already with the indiscriminate arguments for these lists!  Or, if the same argument is going to be used on all of these article, do a mass nomination.  This list is potentially verifiable, but I think it would be extremely difficult to do.  However, I agree with Dacium that the inclusion criteria are too broad.  -- Black Falcon 22:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * As I have noted in at least two other of these AFDs in response to similar comments, a mass nomination of these articles would have been extremely impractical. Trying to talk about 20-some articles nominated together would result in chaos and confusion and would undoubtedly lead to a closure with instruction to re-nominate individually. These nominations seem to be going smoothly enough, not sure what the grounds for complaint about them is. Otto4711 22:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I do agree that a mass nomination of >20 articles would be confusing, but nomination of 3-5 related articles (as the arguments against all are essentially the same) would cut down on the number of separate debates where separate and/or distinct points may be raised. In any case, my main complaint is not the separate nominations, but the blanket application of the "indiscriminate" criticism (that is, of course, your prerogative and I don't think it was in bad-faith; I simply disagree).  I voted to delete in a number of cases based on "loose association", voted to delete in a number of cases based on other reasons, and voted to keep in a number of cases because I did not think the criticisms were applicable and/or grounds for deletion (vs. improvement). -- Black Falcon 00:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * "Indiscriminate" was not blanket-applied to all of the nominations. No single criterion was applied to every one of the nominations, as various of the articles present different issues. I recently mass-nominated around seven or eight articles for million-dollar winners from Who Wants to be a Millionaire and the nomination was shut down because it was a group nom. I can't think of a group of articles that are much more closely related than those, but they were considered too diverse to consider together. I did not want to go through the hassle of mass-nominating the articles only to have to repeat the work after it got shut down. Otto4711 00:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I can certainly understand your desire to avoid a mass nom. In all fairness, you did provide different comments for each nomination.  However, there was also a significant degree of similarity between a number of the nominations (for example, a dozen of them (+/- a few) started out by citing WP:NOT and then stating that "a list of every time X has appeared in a film is indiscriminate").  In any case, I agree that this article deserves to be deleted; my comment was to express my frustration with some of the other nominations.  However, it is still your prerogative as the nominator whether you do them together or separately.  Cheers, Black Falcon 00:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't mind that they were nominated for deletion separately - I actually prefer it that way. However, the canned statements at the beginning made it look like Otto4711 hadn't considered each article's problems and merits individually, and had just been impatient to sweep them all out of the way. However, it only looked like that to people who knew how many substantially identical AfDs were being launched with that same canned statement. To the casual debate participant, it might have appeared as if Otto4711's canned statement was not canned. That fact is likely to ruffle some feathers, as has happened, because some may feel that Otto4711 was attempting to pull the wool over our eyes. It is easy to see how such an act could set off alarm bells, even though there is nothing actually wrong with it. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 00:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You know, I am becoming truly tired of your constant passive-aggressive, bat-your-eyelashes, skirt-the-edge-of-civility comments throughout these nominations. You've continually misrepresented my arguments and on at least one occasion have flat out spoken untruthfully, and your constant (completely wrong, by the way) speculation on my motives in nominating these articles and your implication (couched oh-so-carefully in "gosh, I can certainly see how some people might think he did something wrong" terms) that I have in some way acted improperly demonstrates your abject failure to assume good faith. Otto4711 23:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete as per nomination. I also agree with how Otto4711 went about the nomination. It's the most orderly way to do it, everyone involved can participate and individual factors can be discussed/decided easier. Hoverfish Talk 09:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nomination. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 18:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. It is useful and I don't understand why correct articles should be deleted.194.105.107.36 13:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete this list here but merge small amount into Twist ending since some are worth noting. Usedup 07:33, 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.