Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of films with similar themes and release dates (3rd 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. — Kurykh  22:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

List of films with similar themes and release dates
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This list I would say is a trivia list composed by original research and unverified claims. Even though it has been nominated several times before for deletion, it has miraculously survived via "no consensus". But I believe this "article" isn't encyclopedic and should be deleted → Aza Toth 01:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * ''Note: the first AfD is located at Articles for deletion/List of films with similar plots → Aza Toth 18:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Isn't encyclopedic. --Plasma Twa 2 02:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Please explain how it isn't encyclopaedic. Uncle G 10:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete, just how similar are we talking anyway? This is too indiscriminate and nigh impossible to verify. Ten Pound Hammer  • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 02:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Too discriminate.  bibliomaniac 1 5  BUY NOW! 02:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * With respect, surely you mean indiscriminate. Charlie - talk to me - what I've done  02:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete The last two times this was nominated I thought it was better than most indiscriminate lists, and many of the people who supported keeping it said citations comparing the films were necessary and must be added to avoid the list descending into WP:OR, or relying on the personal opinions of passing editors (ie, an editor thinks "Movie A was a bit similar to Movie B, I'll add it to the list"). Not only have sources failed to appear, but I've been watching this article closely for a while, and regular editors have actually been removing requests for sources. That's right, far from addressing the concerns raised in previous AFDs, they have been making this list worse. This aggressive edit summary is just one of many attempts to prevent sources being added, this editor claims that reading the individual articles is enough and citations are not needed, so interpretation and opinion is needed on the part of the reader. This list will never be anything but WP:OR and WP:NOT. Masaruemoto 03:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that this was a needlessly aggressive edit summary. But the lousy behavior of one editor isn't necessarily a good reason to delete.  A lot of work has been done to provide over 30 specific references and several general references to the phenomenon of films with similar themes and release dates. --JayHenry 03:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Not one editor at all, like I said, one of many. There are other instances of different editors removing requests for sources, I just provided that one as an example. Even if this entire list was sourced, it would still be largely relying on the personal opinions of some arbritrarily chosen film reviewers. Maybe rename to List of films that a film reviewer, sometime, somewhere has compared to another film that happened to have a "similar" release date, because that's all this will ever be. Masaruemoto 05:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Please read the very first AFD discussion, from September 2006, where the actual name for the concept was given. Uncle G 10:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per all of the above. --Evb-wiki 03:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - To be quite honest, I don't see how this is even remotely encyclopedic in nature. If someone could explain how it is, I'd be glad to change my opinion. --Haemo 03:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Please read the very first AFD discussion, from September 2006, where such an explanation was given. Uncle G 10:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't see an actual argument above that this is unencyclopedic. I will observe, the following:
 * Per WP:FIVE: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs." This is perhaps not information you would see in a general encyclopedia, but it's certainly something you'd see in a specialized encyclopedia of the film industry say; or an almanac of the film industry. The argument "unencyclopedic" is generally a poor argument when applied to lists, because lists are generally almanac-style information which is explicitly allowed.
 * Per WP:LIST: "The list may be a valuable information source. This is particularly the case for a structured list. Examples would include lists organized chronologically, grouped by theme, or annotated lists." This is a chronological list, grouped by theme and also annotated.  It is valid per WP:LIST.
 * The article is well referenced. It has nearly 40 sources, including many that specifically address "films with similar themes and release dates," I think that contradicts any assertion that this is WP:OR.
 * As for indiscriminate, I'd point out that Hollywood only produces so many movies in a year, and not that many of them fall under this phenomenon -- in other words, the content of the list is not infinitely large. Quite the contrary.
 * It has not been raised yet, but has been in previous AFDs, the issue of WP:NPOV. NPOV simply states that information be presented neutrally. Thus, the inclusions in the list are not the opinion of any editor, but an assertion from a source: i.e. Happy Feet and Surf's Up are both about computer-animated penguins on Antarctic adventures released within one year of each other.  Perhaps you somehow disagree that these films are similar, but the observation that they are similar is sourced to USA Today.  Also, the notion that someone would have a "pro films about penguins being similar bias" is somewhat ridiculous.
 * In previous AFDs a lot of the arguments have been some version of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. That's fine. I don't like all the manga articles. But it's not a reason to delete. Not by a long shot. --JayHenry 03:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Just a comment about you number of movies made by Hollywood point, the MPAA rated 404 movies in 2006, and average of 7.7 movies per week. So movie's coming out that are similar is gonna happen a lot. TJ Spyke 04:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. The intro, while plausible, is unverified and fails WP:OR; the subject itself is inherently, irretrievably incomplete and unencyclopedic.  Furthermore, there is a direct correlation between the number of movies in a section and the decade it describes, which leads me to believe this article is the product of a group of young people.  It's an example of the same historical shortsightedness that causes the Top Ten Greatest American polls to feature Oprah at number 8.  Somehow the majority of Greatest Americans have lived in the last 20 years.  I think the same shortsightedness applies to this article. --Nonstopdrivel 04:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Please read the very first AFD discussion, from September 2006, where sources documenting the phenomenon, under an actual name, were cited. Yet more sources documenting the phenomenon were cited in Articles for deletion/List of films with similar themes and release dates (second nomination). Uncle G 10:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Undecided. Potentially this could be a valid article, but the editors seem to be stretching to put films on this list. In what way do Star Wars and Close Encounters of the Third Kind have similar themes? And even less so, what do Sweet Sweetback's Baadasss Song and Shaft have in common? That they are about black people? --Metropolitan90 05:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. The criteria for inclusion as to "similar themes" are too vaguely defined, making this indiscriminate information. --Metropolitan90 09:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep this might be important reference to movie critics, although I think concensus must be reached on its talkpage for deciding wich movies are similar -- Andersmusician $  06:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete No external criterion for what should be included here, hence this is original research. Kim Dent-Brown  (Talk to me)  09:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * An appropriate external criterion was given in the very first AFD discussion, from September 2006. Please read it. Uncle G 10:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Then if the criterion (mention by external film reviewer) exists, it should be applied. In other words a reference for each item on the list to a review mentioning the similarity. A lot of work I know, but that's what the use of this criterion involves. Kim Dent-Brown  (Talk to me)  10:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete vague, subjective, trivial, unmaintainable OR list. Doczilla 09:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Back when this was first nominated for deletion, as in September 2006, I gave a whole list of links to places where people talked about "copycat" movies, such as this magazine article, and it was suggested by MacGyverMagic that the article be renamed to copycat movie.  That never happened.  I suggest that all of the above editors look at the prior AFD discussions.  It's time to actually do what was suggested 9 months ago.  Uncle G 10:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Even if this is true, who cares? --Nonstopdrivel 13:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You can follow the links that I gave to see that it is true. "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" is not an indiscriminate criterion for deletion.  It is usually abused as the argument given by editors who cannot find a real rationale based upon what our policies actually say.  Uncle G 15:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - This list remains a directory of loosely associated items with a vague and arbitrary standard of inclusion. There is no objective definition of what constitutes a "similar theme." There is no objective definition of what constitutes a "similar release date." Individual editors must decide what constitutes a similar theme or release date, which is impermissible original research. I acknowledge that since the last AFD a number of editors have tried to get the list into better shape but it still fails WP:NOT and WP:OR. Otto4711 12:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Having individual editors make the decisions is unnecessary if they use the sources that were pointed out to you in the second AFD discussion, some of which can currently be even found hyperlinked-to by the article. Please actually look at the sources outside of Wikipedia that have done the analysis that have been pointed out again and again over 4 AFD discussions. Uncle G 15:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I have looked at a number of the linked sources and I explained the last time around why I find relying on reviews and other opinion pieces for sourcing questionable. It entails giving undue weight to reviews that support the notion of similarity while discounting those that don't. And I can type in highly dramatic italics too, so I'm not really that impressed by it. Otto4711 19:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * If you seriously think that this article is biased, find some sources that say why some specific pairs of movies are not similar and add them to the article for balance. Remember, a NPOV is not reached by deleting information, but by adding the competing opinions. --Itub 08:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll pass, thanks, List of films that some people say are similar in theme and release date but other people say aren't would be an even dumber list than this. Otto4711 18:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per JayHenry, plus some comments. Saying that "there is no objective definition of what constitutes a similar release date" is not a convincing complaint, as it can be trivially made objective by agreeing on a timespan and adding it to the top or the article, or even to the title. For example, how about "List of films with similar themes released within one year of one another"? (Which from observation of the list, seems to be the de facto criterion in most cases). The question of similar themes is arguably more subjective, but I haven't seen any controversial claims in the list, and specific cases could be discussed in the talk page. In most cases the similarity is blatantly obvious. Who would dispute the fact that Tombstone (1993) and Wyatt Earp (1994) are both films about Wyatt Earp? Or that Deep Impact and Armageddon, released in 1998, were films that featured a celestial body hitting the Earth? The ultimate sources are the films themselves. If seeing a film and concluding that it is about a celestial body hitting Earth is original research, then so is concluding that a film is about Joan of Arc, and there are many instances of this in the featured list about Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc. --Itub 13:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Wrong. The ultimate sources are the people who, outside of Wikipedia, have observed the phenomenon of copycat movies, analysed it, and documented it, not Wikipedia editors watching films, drawing their own conclusions, and writing them up directly in Wikipedia.  It is this very misunderstanding of the No original research policy on the parts of editors adding text to this article that is partly the problem here.  Uncle G 15:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:NOR does not prohibit the use of primary sources. It just says they should be used with care. Almost all of the articles we have about films, music, literature, etc. include some sort of plot synopsis, and in the vast majority of cases this is based directly on the work and not on secondary literature. Casablanca is a Featured Article with absolutely no references for the plot synopsis and lead. Is it original research to say that "Casablanca is an Oscar-winning 1942 romance film set during World War II in the Vichy-controlled Moroccan city of Casablanca"? (That's the very first sentence in the article and it's unsourced.) If we can have a synopsis on a movie based on the movie itself, we can certainly note that two movies have similar themes while referring to the movies themselves. --Itub 08:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Even if there were a source for each item, which would be a minimum requirement for making this list even remotely useful, the source would have to be the same for each item because that's the only way the same criteria would be applied.  Since a wild variation of criteria is applied for the items, it is not really an accurate list at all.  It's utterly useless and unmaintainable. --Spike Wilbury 15:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete list of  with . Definition of "similar" is elastic, and there is no encyclopaedic topic films with similar themes and release dates to support this list. Guy (Help!) 15:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * There's an encyclopaedic topic of copycat movies. Renaming and refactoring this article was suggested in the very first AFD discussion.  As I've already said, It's time to actually do what was suggested 9 months ago. Uncle G 15:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Make it so. That is quite different from the subject as now, so I don't see it has much bearing, but if enough (FSVO) of the current entries fit the bill in your view then a move, purge, slice, dice, refactor and refinish is fine too. Guy (Help!) 15:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge all cited content to a prose article properly titled to cover this pattern, especially with more attributable sources that study trends in the film industry. As a list, this article has been abused by synthesized additions.  When a prose article is created, then the cited examples should be whittled down to the most significant to reduce the nature of an indiscriminate list. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. The criteria are so vague as to be worthless. Similarity of plots or themes is (with a few exceptions) subjective. And what exactly is a "close period of time"? Clarityfiend 17:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions.   -- Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, the phenomenon exist and is sometimes covered in newsstories when it occurs. The criteria should be sharpened though and the list should only include movie combinations where a reliable sources can be found that noted and mentioned the similarity between the movies. In addition: there is nothing "miraculous" about an article surviving AfD with "no consensus". Wikipedia has always had the policy that, when in doubt, don't delete. A "no consensus" result is the same as a "keep" only with not-near unanimous support. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 19:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. I can see an article being written on the topic of "copycat films" but this list fails WP:NOT.  Furthermore, attempting to categorize/classify these films as "copycats" due to a percieved similarity between subject matters and a similar release date is painfully original research.  Without substantial sourcing to prove that "Movie X and Movie Y have similar themes" grouping them as such is a primary observation and Wikipedia is not the place for such things. Ark yan  &#149; (talk) 21:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 21:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. It's a well-known convention in the film industry-- even more so than the lead balloon of the "let's get out of here" paradox -- that movies with similar themes are often produced by competing studios and released at the same time.  Not copycats (who would copy "First Daughter"?), because they're parallel developments.  It's more like deja vu.  Hence, Black Sunday and Two Minute Warning, or The Truman Show and EdTV.  There's a similar trend in television shows, such as 1974's "Happy Days" and the less well-known "Sons and Daughters".  The critics here just aren't film critics.  Roger Ebert has acknowledged this same Hollywood oddity, usually when reviewing the second of two such films.  Great list.  Mandsford 23:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, original research and trivia.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  11:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I feel that this article is a good one, as it keeps track of such phenomena with relative ease. Skrooball 17:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: List of films with similar themes and release dates has not been able to exercise any sort of notability as an article. Under WP:NOTE, "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.  'Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but less than exclusive." (Bolding is mine.)  Furthermore, the note for that particular passage says, "Note 1: Examples: The 360-page book by Sobel and the 528-page book by Black on IBM are plainly non-trivial. The one sentence mention by Walker of the band Three Blind Mice in a biography of Bill Clinton (Martin Walker. "Tough love child of Kennedy", The Guardian, January 6, 1992. ) is plainly trivial."  (Bolding is mine again.)  As I have said and some other editors have said, the so-called phenomenon of copycat films or copycat media in general need to be explored with significant coverage, and not through reviews saying, "Hey, these films came out at the same time and have the same plot.  Anyway, the first one was good, and the second one sucked."  The listing of these details are indiscriminate details that are synthesized to support the argument of this topic.  "Significant coverage" would be more appropriate, and if there is no detailed commentary on this phenomenon, then it may not necessarily have encyclopedic value. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * What would be "significant coverage" in your view, then? There are two external links in the article itself which discuss the phenomenon in general. One of which points to a Washington Post article that gives several examples. So what would satisfy your need for "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"? I vote Strong Keep, myself. It's a good article, well sourced, and all the objections to it seem like rationalizations, at best. They amount to little more than "I don't like it". 169.198.254.6 16:20, 22 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.