Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of films with disabled protagonists (2nd nomination)


 * 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. I used AWB to add to each of the films listed on this article. — Ocat ecir T 00:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

List of films with disabled protagonists
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Previously nominated a few months ago and ended in no consensus, but I feel that there has been enough precedent to nominate it again. As stated in the previous afd, Wikipedia is not a repository of loosely-associated topics. When the X-men series is being listed, as well as films where the disability is nothing but a passing element or a set up for a joke (Dr.Strangelove), it becomes apparent this list serves no purpose but to display POVed trivia. Bulldog123 15:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as nom Bulldog123 15:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, list of trivia. Per nom.  Lankiveil 15:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC).
 * Delete for a few reaons. It's an indiscriminate list, serves no purpose, and it's listcruft -- su mn ji m  talk with me·changes 17:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. IP198 19:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete-adds nothing in particular to the encyclopaedia. Issues of disability of protagonists should be dealt with on specific article pages.--Rossheth | Talk to me 19:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and because disability is ill-defined and subjective. Carlossuarez46 21:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete- per all of the above. Eddie  22:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep -- In that handicapped and disabled persons aren't usually characters in films, let alone the protagonists, KEEP it. The disabled are underrepresented in popular culture.  A person in a wheelchair, or with Down's syndrome, or cerebral palsy... not very often in Tinsel Town.  About the only thing I like about the Farrelly Brothers (sp?) is that their films, though tasteless, recognize that the world is not limited to fully abled people.  A movie that deals with disability in a non-patronizing way is a rarity.  Suggestion-- mention the protagonist and the disability.  Mandsford 23:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment-Certainly not all the films in that list treat with respect. For example, in Dr Strangelove, it's just an extra comedic element.--Rossheth | Talk to me 08:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Convert to Category since it is just a list with no other info. If there were additional content as Mandsford suggests, I'd vote to keep. Capmango 00:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Listcruft. As each film has it's own article and there are enough to justify it, create a category instead. --Bren talk 05:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions.   --   ⇒ bsnowball  10:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * keep if mandsford's last suggestion (add protagonist & disability) is followed, thus making it more informative than a category  ⇒ bsnowball 10:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete this artical is not worth keeping XNYTV 11:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep on condition that the protagonist and the disability are mentioned (Mandsford's suggestion, see above). &lt;K  F&gt;  21:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep ditto to keeping if mandsford's suggestion is followed, otherwise, delete it. Bsay  USD  [Talk]  [contribs]  14:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom as WP:INTERESTING. Ohconfucius 03:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete the list and create a category The concept here is notable. There is a website with an index of 2500 feature films compiled (http://www.disabilityfilms.co.uk/ note: yes, they have included the x-men).  And this subject is significantly covered in reliable sources ( here is an aricle, here is an entire list of books, etc.).  Since every item listed has an article, however, it would be much better to use a category.  I might be persuaded to change to "keep" if Mansford (or others) state plans to (1) add the additional information suggested above, and (2) write a well-sourced introduction breifly presenting some historical and cultural backgound (to show that this is really not indiscriminate/trivial). -MrFizyx 16:47, 21 June 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.