Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of films with similar themes and release dates (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 no consensus. I recommend taking this discussion to the Talk page of the article as it seems to be moving in a productive direction. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihon joe 20:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

List of films with similar themes and release dates (second nomination)

 * — (View AfD)

Here is the first nomination. This article consists pretty much of subjective comparisons of movies. There are exactly zero citations, and two shakey (at best) links at the bottom- a "discussion" and a "blog discussion." Obviously some movies will bear a striking resemblance to each other via ripoffs and such, but how do we draw the line? Are they similar because of genres? Actors? Plots? How do we define "similar release dates"? What critics and sources would we consider notable or numerous enough for movies to be "similar". This list is just too vague abd subjective. I think this fails original research and What Wikipedia is not. Wafulz 03:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete I've read about this in Entertainment Weekly, but don't have that article anymore, and from what I see here (and looking at random revisions in the edit history), this is completely unsourced, and both links are blogs. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 03:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep good cleanup, illustrates a film phenomenon. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 20:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Seems like we're having a hard time coming up with an apt title for this article, and yes it is open to subjectivity, but I find the article very interesting and valuable for anybody interested in the film studio system. It's not as if it's a list of movies that make you feel good or something subjective by nature; it's a list of movies that seem to be made just to compete with another. Additions need to be moderated or the text should be changed so people better understand the purpose, though (having Master & Commander and Pirates of the Caribbean listed together is just silly) -Asriel 04:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * My argument is that it's really not possible to create an objective list here. How many critics (or other important people) must mention that one movie is similar to another? How do we define "similar" release dates? I feel that the last question in particular would just end up being completely arbitrary. --Wafulz 04:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Be careful not to use WP:ILIKEIT arguments in AfD discussions since they really don't stand up to Wikipedia policy giants like WP:OR. Axem Titanium 05:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 05:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. To compare to movies on Wikipedia without an independent source discussing it first is the very definition of original research: An editor went out and saw (ie researched) both movies and made his/her own decision about their relatedness and then decided, "I want to feel smart and tell the world about my discovery on Wikipedia!" Unfortunately, that's not the way this place works. I'm surprised that it survived the first nomination with people basically saying "Keep, it's an interesting subject". Axem Titanium 05:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Lots of these similarities have been noted in major media. I grabbed three bullet points from the 1990s and easily found New York Times and Toronto Star articles noting the similarities. I've added the references to the article: . Let's prune out the silly Original Research from this article and keep the good stuff. Cas510 05:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. The subjective nature of the list, and the almost total lack of external sources, makes this a clear cut case of original research. Reyk  YO!  05:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. It already passed an AFD. Perhaps the nominator should have done his/her resaerch and noted that we want to keep this article. Calicore 06:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * '''Comment: Consensus can change. Resolute 06:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The first word in the nomination is a link to the previous nomination! --Wafulz 07:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete indiscriminate list, highly subjective - ie: Flushed Away and Ratatouille (film) being considered similar because the protagonists are rats? Nevermind that the actual themes are wildly different.  Possibly WP:OR.  Concerns about WP:V.  Criteria is way to subjective to be valuable. Resolute 06:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete I think this article would fail an ANOVA if you could run one. Miserably. Looks to me like within-group variance is at least as large as between group variance! In other words, it would be just as easy to match two films from different categories as they stand now as it is to agree with the match of the films IN the categories as they stand now. So I agree strongly with original research comments.  Great point above on "Flushed Away and Ratatouille (film) being considered similar because the protagonists are rats?  Nevermind that the actual themes are wildly different."  There are tons of examples throughout the page of this.  "Event Horizon (1997) and Sphere (1998), both involve an abandoned U.S. spaceship that contains a giant orb and members of the search or rescue crew who hallucinate their worst nightmares."  You could just as easily argue that Nightmare on Elm Street should be on that list with the hallucinatory nightmares.  While we're at it, I don't know about you, but those Aliens were pretty awful, and they  were birthed as eggs (spheres) and Ripley does have nightmares... (*tongue in cheek*). If something like this is going to stay, I'd argue strongly that it should be stripped down to things that can be supported with citations(similar to the pruning comment earlier)...which, since there are currently no references, sounds like a fresh start might be a good idea.  The list is also haphazard, so I don't think it meets Wikipedia's quality standards. Maybe  these things would make more sense in the "Trivia" that appears at the bottom of some film entries.

Katsesama 07:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete this information absolutely. It's simply original research, and we shouldn't be expected to keep this garbage around on the basis that maybe some kind fellow will come along and clean it up. I'm more than happy to overturn the last AfD due to the ridiculous amount of non-arguments such as "I like it!", "It's useful!", and "It's interesting!"  '  (Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!) 08:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. WP:OR and WP:NOT are non-negotiable. MER-C 08:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, this is packed full of original research, and I agree that the relatedness may well be illusionary. A lot of the similarities seem to be related to the presence of stock characters common in a genre. Having said that, an encyclopedic treatment of this 'phenomenon' may be possible (but very difficult to do). This article is nowhere near, however.--Nydas (Talk) 13:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I've decided to withdraw this delete comment as sources have been added. Neutral for now.--Nydas (Talk) 17:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete as original research and an unmanageable list. YechielMan 17:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete The information is original research. TSO1D 14:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Unsure Some of the current article is reaching a bit (V for Vendetta and Children of Men for example) but I do think there's an article to be written about direct-to-video films with a clear connection to popular theatrical films (e.g. When a Killer Calls, Snakes on a Train, and those dollar-store "generic" versions of Disney cartoons). Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  14:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, it got merits since this phenomenon its indeed often seen and reported. It deperately needs sourcing though (a source for each item in the list that is). --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 16:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as unmaintainable original research. J I P  | Talk 17:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I can see the case for this article, but it is currently unsourced. The only way we could have a list like this is if a good secondary source discussed the correllations. Tarinth 18:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I think the idea has merit. Could be better organized and or written perhaps. Tuttt 20:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I just looked over this article again, and I think some contributers were confused as to its intention. Many films are/were listed just because they happened to have similar surface content (ie probably a coincidence), but the article should only be listing films that were made seemingly to compete with eachother (Deep Impact, Armageddon) or capitalize on a trend (Matrix, Thirteenth Floor, eXistense). Perhaps it should be retitled/repurposed (again), maybe to "List of films made to compete with eachother", which would be notable and would be much less subjective (and printed reviews could probably be used as sources). --Asriel 02:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC) (Used the wrong signature code first time)
 * Delete An unmanagable, subjective list of non-notable information stemming entirely from original research.--Nick Y. 22:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia at its worst. Pavel Vozenilek 22:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Pushing personal theories about relationship of two movies: original research. --maclean 00:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The idea has merit and I keep running into articles in the mainstream press that mention this phenomenon. Some of them contain suspiciously similar examples to this very list. I think it would be more productive to come up with more specific objective characteristics for what this list should and shouldn't contain, rather than deleting the whole thing. Ravy 01:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep - Criteria are relatively clear, and it's a phenomenon that's reported on in the mainstream media. Could be a little better sourced, but these are not just a bunch of coincidences. Pro hib it O ni o ns  (T) 02:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. I still maintain this list is arbitrary and unmaintainable. We have a vague definition of "similar release dates" which would, at best, be arbitrarily decided by the community as some form of consensus-driven original research- even then, we're still left with the whole principle of drawing a line somewhere- are movies considered similar release dates if they're in the same year? Two years? Five? How about ten? If we were to eliminate the date criteria, we'd simply be left with "lists of films with similar themes/plots/whatever", which could be indefinite and unmaintainable seeing as any critic could compare any two movies and declare them similar. This leaves out that there's a question of how similar two movies must be, whether through plot, actors, score, theme, etc. This whole article seems to hinge on an undefined concept of "similarity". I completely agree that it's a phenomenon noted in the press through common ripoffs and movies riding trends, but I don't think it can be made into an article because it's essentially a collection of "Hey, these two things are sort of alike according to so-and-so" --Wafulz 03:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. I still maintain that this is a phenomenon that is widely reported on in the media. Have a look at this: . I think it would be easy to find consensus that a year would be an appropriate cutoff for this phenomenon, and that we should make it clear in the comments of this article that people should not add their own original research, but should only add verified, notable similar films with similar themes and similar release dates. Cas510 04:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * How can it be easy to assert that? Would we be allowed to create articles for two years or more? This opens the door to all sorts of slippery slope arguments and bad precedents. --Wafulz 04:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm saying it would likely be easy to find consensus, if we tried. All of the copycat movie articles I've read, and all the typical examples (Bug'sLife/Antz, Capote/Infamous, TrumanShow/EdTV) are very close in release dates, usually under a year. Movies take about a year or less to make; for two movies that are very similar to come to fruition within a year is notable. I'm going to keep trying to improve this article during this AfD, adding references, removing OR, and trying to find consensus on the talk page about what the list definitively is for. I thank you for bringing this article to mine (and others) attention. Cas510 04:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep Like people have said above, the idea has merit, unsourced things should be put on probation for a fortnight and then removed though I believe. If you can't find sources for the facts given then delete the fact, not the article.  Noble eagle  [TALK] [C] 04:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment regarding sources, I just added about 10 source links to the article in as many minutes. All I did was Google the two movie titles together and always found articles discussing or at least mentioning the similarities. Shouldn't be too hard to source every movie listed in the article, and any movie where a source can't be found can be removed. --Asriel 05:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Well researched and good to read. Thank you bringing it to my attention. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 08:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep Now that somebody has gone through and diligently sourced this, there's no grounds for calling it original research any more. As for Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and Wikipedia is not a directory this article does not fit.  It is a common phenomenon, as demonstrated by the size of the now-sourced list.  The improvement has negated the original grounds for deletion.--JayHenry 18:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Being well sourced does not make it not original research. This is a common misunderstanding. It simply makes it good original research. All good OR is well sourced but reaches novel conclusions. The conclusions reached here are either novel or so specific and a nearly verbatim recounting or someone else's work as to be inappropriate for wikipedia.--Nick Y. 19:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I am not following the above argument at all, its an oxymoronic argument. Its saying the article is either OR or stealing someone else's words, which is it? It can't be both.


 * Delete for reasons listed above. Classifications, to be valid, ought to have bright lines around them, not 'this-is-funny' lines.  This list is mildly amusing, but it belongs somewhere else, not Wikipedia.  Bigturtle 23:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. To take the first entry, no unsourced claims in "Hoodwinked (2006) and Happily N'Ever After (2007) are both computer-animated films that send up fairy tales. Both also happen to feature Patrick Warburton and Andy Dick.". (The claims are sourced in the articles on each film.) The addendum, "The Shrek series also bears a notable resemblence to Happily N'Ever After." is vague (and weasel wordy), but that's easily fixable, and not a reason for deletion. Looking at the rest of the list, I similarly see very few unsourced claims. — Kwi | Talk 23:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That the information is verifiable is not the only criteria for inclusion on wikipedia. This article is a thesis that uses multiple sources to reach novel conclusion never before reached. OR just well written and supported and compelling OR such that it could be a chapter for a PH.D. in comparative filmology. It would never pass the thesis committee without good sources, but that is not how we judge articles here. At wikipedia they must be verifiable and not novel, otherwise it belong elsewhere like a novel or a thesis.--Nick Y. 20:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Never before reached? But those conclusions have been reached elsewhere. Have a look at the Washington Post article in the references at the bottom of the article. Cas510 22:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * There's still the question of why we should be mirroring a critic's sentiment just because it fits very arbitrarily selected criteria (ie released within one year). --Wafulz 20:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Some of those conclusions have been reached elsewhere. They have never been compiled before. We should change the name of the article to List of films noted by film critics as having similar themes and release dates.--Nick Y. 07:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. "reported on in the mainstream media." as noted earlier.--Connection 00:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:OR &mdash; Ultor_Solis • T 15:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * KeepGnrlotto 06:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom - Ozzykhan 22:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete inconsistent and sometimes very POV comparisons Jooaakim 21:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep What is the point of continually resubmitting fter a keep decision? The is not OR Encyclopedia articles are made by compiling other sources. DGG 02:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * One resubmition is hardly "repeatedly". The reason I submitted this is because it is a magnet for OR and I believe it is arbitrary and not entirely encyclopedic. You have every right to disagree, but there's no reason to use hyperbole. --Wafulz 02:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Pure original research with no way to ever rise above that flaw. Yes, its an interesting idea, but that does not make it worthy of an encyclopedia article.  Let the author publish this essay somewhere else, Wikipedia is not the proper forum.  TheMindsEye 03:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Definitely encyclopedic, shows trends in film. - Troy 18:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep But comparisons still unsourced should (soon) get removed... highlunder 02:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Thanks to Wafulz for directing me here. I think the compromise is better than deletion.  I'll let y'all work out the details. YechielMan 05:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Suggested compromise
This discussion is pretty much headed in the direction of no consensus. Since I (and many others) really dislike the article in its current state, I say we compromise: I'm sure other details can be hased out on the talk page. I'd like to know what everyone thinks of this. --Wafulz 18:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename and restructure to List of trends in cinema, or something similar. This eliminates the criteria of "similar" themes and release dates. These trends will cover things like the current trend with penguins in movies, Bond ripoffs, etc. Of course, trends need to be cited (which is pretty easy to do in most cases). These trends are far more significant than "movie x looks like movie y" and they are noted for historical importance by many critics and film historians.
 * Provide some examples. Trends obviously exist, so what we could do is have a small selection of, say, two or three films (cited, of course) which are the best examples of such trends. I think something like "This movie started the trend, this movie capitalize, and so did this one" or something like that.
 * A good topic for an article, perhaps "Trends in Cinema" with an appended list. I'd suggest you do it regardless of the outcome here.  Not the same as the list here tho, as this deals with specific pairs. Re-examining the list, I think its present state is quite respectable, with good annotations on all items. Meets the guidelines in WP:LIST, and the standards seem to be applied fairly rigorously. Very few red links. It may attract spam, but spam can be removed. DGG 19:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I (and a few others) disagree about it meeting WP:LIST because of somewhat vague criteria- I believe that the list of movies following trends would be much better suited and much less arbitrary. --Wafulz 19:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia always had the policy that when in doubt about an article, don't delete it. If the criteria are vague and there is no consensus if this article meets those criteria, there is doubt, so no deletion. The sourcing of the article has improved dramatically since it was nominated (from 0 to 36), and the few I checked indeed supported a link between the movies they were supposed to deal with. A better introduction to the article would be wanted though. Concerns about POV and "really disliking the article" are no reason for deletion. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 20:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Remember that wikipedia is not a democracy and there have been plenty of well reasoned valid points made for deletion, so don't count on your no consensus wash.--Nick Y. 20:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Relax please, I was asked on my talk page to comment on this proposal. I do not count on anything, nor do I have affection for this particular article. My only concern with is was sourcing (as I already stated on the 3rd of January) and this has been largely solved. If an administrator decides to delete, then that is his call. The one "counting" on no consensus was Wafulz, who writes above "this discussion is pretty much headed in the direction of no consensus", and apparently disliking that potential outcome he states "I (and many others) really dislike the article" as an argument to plea for essentially removing this article and replacing it with List of trends in cinema, an article he has all the right in the world to write anyway (regardless of the outcome here). --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 20:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * In this context, "don't like" means "don't believe it meets Wikipedia policies", as many have stated above. I'm just clarifying that I'm not using WP:ILIKEIT. I would prefer to have a compromise where we can decide to keep an article rather than to have no consensus with what many believe is not an appropriate article. --Wafulz 22:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I think this idea has some potential and credibility if implemented properly as a history article and not particularly as a list. I think the similar theme and date issue could be covered within such an article without the issue of being an exhaustive subjective list. Examples noted by critics could be cited without the issue of original research that we have here. With that said I still object and vote delete regarding this article as an unmanageable subjective list containing original research. I applaud your sensible suggestion and encourage others to see the value of converting this into an encyclopedic article.--Nick Y. 20:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I like the idea, in fact if there isn't an article about cinematic trends over the years there definitely should be. However, the thing I like about this article as-is is how it insinuates a level of subtrifuge on behalf of the movie studios. That many movies are made with the blatent intention of taking the audience from--, hoping to be confused with--, or attempting to be compared to-- another movie. This seems to be a separate (more conscious) movement from a trend.


 * I suppose the problem with that is that there's no clear way to source whether a movie was in fact just conforming to a trend or trying to mimic another movie. In fact, if you asked anybody point-blank if their movie (say, AntZ) was meant to copycat or compete with another movie (say, A Bug's Life) they would probably say no, even if they had. I guess that makes it impossible to make the distinction between trendiness and a knockoff, so a list of cinema trends would be a fine compromise.


 * The only question would then be, do we format it the same as the current article by date and list "2000s': Penguin Movie trend: Happy Feet and Surf Penguin Or Whatever It's Called" etc, or do we sort it by trend. "Penguin Movie Trend: Happy Feet and The Other One (CGI Penguin movies) seemed to follow the popularity of the award winning March of The Penguins."


 * --Asriel


 * Support the superb suggestion made by Wafulz above. Bigturtle 22:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Support proposal but still delete the article, I rather like Wafulz's proposal here. My main concern (after the OR and verifiability bit) was the notability of these comparisions, especially in light of the plethora of sources. Sure, someone decided to compare two movies in some reliable source, but is the comparison notable? I can't imagine every single one listed could be notable enough to include on Wikipedia. With Wafulz's proposal, some criterion for inclusion seems inherent in that the movie must have started a trend, rather than simply an isolated and possibly coincidental similarity. In this way, the article becomes much less indiscriminate than the current article as well. Axem Titanium 22:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose proposal, but let's work on this some more. Wafulz's suggestion is a good start, but let's keep talking before we put anything to a vote. These are not "trends in cinema", which is pretty vague (CGI is a trend. Jump cuts are a trend. Science fiction was a trend in the late 1970s, and adventure in the early 1980s. Film noir was a trend, if not a movement). What we're talking about is the fact that studios often go head-to-head (or close to it) with two, or occasionally more, similar films. I agree that the reason for why this is so is often unclear, from great-minds-thinking-alike to copycatting to coincidence; and I also agree there's no reason for us to decide why this was, either. But "trend" is just too unclear for me. I still think a variation on the present title would be a little more apt, i.e., List of films with similar topics released within a short time of each other. Pro hib it O ni o ns  (T) 22:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes and no. One argument for deletion mentioned by many above is the vaguely defined scope of the current list. A list of trends in films, while perhaps not a bad topic for an article per se, would be even more vague, and would almost certainly have to exclude items on the current list. The fact that "Turner & Hooch (1989) and K-9 (1989) are both movies where a police officer gets a dog for a partner" is not notable as a trend on its own, but is probably notable as an example of the specific trend of films with similar themes and release dates. I don't see a reason why Wikipedia shouldn't include this information (yes, I realize that WP is not an indiscriminate collection of information). On the other hand, a list of trends in films would be able to focus on the larger picture, which is obviously also important. For instance, inclusion of Flushed Away and Ratatouille on the current list may not be justified, just because they are computer animated films from 2006/07 with rat protagonists. However, a list of trends could accomodate the fact that DreamWorks and Disney have their own "trend" of releasing films with similarities (Antz/A Bug's Life, Shark Tale/Finding Nemo, Madagascar/The Wild, Flushed Away/Ratatouille). — Kwi | Talk 23:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep: as Kwi said, movies that bear an uncanny resemblance are often put out at the same time, and that is phenomenon notable. All the arguments about POV and OR will mean nothing when this is properly sourced, and the lack of sources is not a reason to delete an article. --Daniel Olsen 03:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep I agree with Daniel Olsen; he said it so well, and I won't bother to repeat it.
 * You're more than welcome to enact your proposal, but let's get rid of this indiscriminate listcruft first. MER-C 06:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep With respect to film, this is as important an article as any. To be honest, I'm surprised that it hasn't been addressed before now.  I agree with ProhibitOnions (and others) that what you're proposing is not about trends in cinema per se.  However, I disagree with his/her suggested name change.  A better title would be "competitive implementations of thematic devices in cinema," or something to that effect.  Also, when you limit it to similar films that were released a short time apart from one another (i.e., The Time Machine / The Butterfly Effect), you are effectively ignoring longstanding patterns of competitive pseudo-plagiarism.  An angle worth exploring would be studios' years-long infatuation with releasing cookie-cutter blockbusters: alien movies, disaster flicks, superhero films, mobster films, spy films, neo-noir, the whole gamut.  This phenomenon has as much relevance to the matter at hand as any two similar films released in practical simultaneity, and in fact would serve to establish a broader framework for a more thorough investigation.  Best of luck to you. TrevorPearce 14:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that the keep votes such as you don't understnad that the delete votes don't think that the subject of competition in the movie industry by closely mirroring the themes of other studios is not real or notable or worthy of an article. It is simply that this article as it currently stands is not appropriate for wikipedia. It is an exhuastive subjective list. If an article was written to explain and demonstrate this phenomenon without caliming to list every example tehn this would probably be all keep votes.--Nick Y. 19:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * But Nick Y., that's precisely the reason many of us are arguing to keep the article. If even you believe that it's a worthy topic for an article, how about helping improve it, suggest guidelines that you find suitable (or at least give people some time to get it up to shape) before chucking the whole thing out the window.  The solution for a topic worthy of an article with problems is improvement, not deletion.--JayHenry 23:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe what Nick is trying to say is that this article is inappropriate, but a different incarnation of it with better, more encyclopedic criteria would be good. --Wafulz 02:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I think this list works fine, but within the context of a more complete article. I suggest it be kept and improved.  It needs a larger introductory statement, with referecnes relating to the practice of "borrowing" ideas over the history of cinema.  Begin with genres of film that obviously mimic or were inspired by another.  Spaghetti westerns and samurai films, for instance, or Brian DePalma's Hitchcock infatuation early in his career, both of which are well-documented.  One doesn't need to be a film historian to see that this kind of thing has gone on for a very long time.  A lot of these references are solid, and it'd be a shame to let the research go to waste.  The appropriate call is to enhance the article with more history, and to pinpoint objective relationships between sets of films.  If the release dates of two films were very close together, one could easily reason that a studio got word of another's idea, but it is important to be able to substantiate the claim with either hard evidence, the opinions of several journalists, film critics, or industry insiders, or an overwhelming public belief in the existence of such a connection.  Look up pre-production dates and cite IMDB and other sources for things like scheduled release dates versus actual ones.  If you could show that film X was rushed through production to compete with film Y, it wouldn't hurt. TrevorPearce 06:57, 11 January 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.