Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of films with unexposed contents


 * 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 of the debate was KEEP, with a possible move. -Splash talk 02:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

List of films with unexposed contents
Pointless listcruft. I'd like someone to explain how this could possibly be useful. (If by chance this article is kept, the confusing title needs to be changed.) 23skidoo 06:02, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete about as indiscriminate as an indiscriminate collection of information can possibly be. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 07:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge. Possibly useful by merging into MacGuffin or another one of the articles within the category of Narratology.  These unrevealed contents are all plot devices to make the mechanics of storytelling work, or to increase the narrative tension.  At least a couple of items on this list are already represented in MacGuffin.  Just a thought.  --Lockley 08:12, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. I created this list partially because neither "red herring" or "MacGuffin" properly covers this particular film device. The device is perhaps important only to film theorists and enthusiasts but it has a rich history in early avante garde cinema and became progressively more popular in mainstream films. The fact that it has been a device employed by a wide variety of important directors from a multitude of countries also lends it some legitimacy. I was unable to find a decent list anywhere else on the internet and so I decided to begin compiling one on Wikipedia. I am new to Wikipedia so if I'm violating some specific rules, please let me know what needs to change to meet the proper structure and boundaries. Walrus125 08:41, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - good beginnings, although introduction needs to be expanded. Essexmutant 09:32, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. I had written up my explanation and then must not have saved it. Whoops. Anyhow, I think this list is great. This article is useful for anyone trying to learn about film devices. Also, how is the list an indiscriminate collection? The list is pretty clearly defined and not very vague: how is a list of films with an object whose contents are never made visible to the audience hard to define? It's a limited list that is verifiable and mildly notable. Folkor 09:49, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Firstly, Walrus125, thank you very much for joining Wikipedia, even if your first experience of article-writing has ended here! Your courteous response is much appreciated. I hope the people here who will disagree with you do not put you off. Anyway, keep, as it is a potentially updateable, not inherently-POV list, and |Wikipedia is not paper. Batmanand 10:04, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's a tightly-specified list, and the concept seems meaningful/useful for film studies. Nice one, Walrus125. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?)  10:36, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. The list is well-defined in its premise and is definitely interesting and unique enough to warrant its own page. Kusonaga 10:52, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Possibly rename? Should probably have a link from Narratology.    Dl yo ns 493   Ta lk  10:55, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - Good article. Glad to see Ronin on there.  Cyde Weys  14:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Move to Unexposed contents (film) to talk about the plot device. If the list of films overwhelms that article, then split. Peyna 15:35, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * My vote is conditioned upon someone providing a cite or something to show that this is an actual term used in the industry or otherwise to describe this device. Google came up very scarce on the subject, which might me we are bordering on original research. Peyna 15:37, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Similarly I may change my vote and withdraw this AFD but only if someone can provde me proof that "things in boxes" -- which is what this appears to be -- is actually an aspect of film studies anyone cares about. None of these votes have convinced me. 23skidoo 15:59, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm still waiting for some sort of explanation to indicate how and why "unexposed contents" has any value as a film term. I'm personally baffled. 23skidoo 15:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Move to Unexposed contents (film), as previously suggested. Jeff Silvers 19:34, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Move to Unexposed contents (film), per above. I've been realizing lately that there's a difference between listcruft-type lists and lists that actually have some analysis, and really should be articles rather than just lists. This is one. —rodii 02:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Move/merge per above, pending confirmation that this is the industry term. Nicely defined, unlikely to grow out of control. -- nae'blis (talk) 15:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete all listcruft: Create decent articles, not lists :: Supergolden 17:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as seriously trivial article. It's partially listcruft and partially documenting a painfully irrelevant movie device. Stifle 18:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * "Painfully irrelevant"? Maybe film devices don't interest you, but they interest other people. This may fare better as an article with a list of examples, but still, it's an aspect of film worth taking note of. Folkor 20:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * If one is not interested in film theory, technique or history this may appear trivial. There are many fields that I am uninterested in, yet I regard the input of those studying in such fields to be of value. The price of tea in China DOES matters to those who drink large amounts of tea and live in China (and that is more people then one might guess). Walrus125 23:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete - cover at McGuffin. Johntex\talk 01:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Either move to Unexposed contents or do not move, but do not delete: this seems a valuable article on a valuable device (speaking entirely without prejudice, I have never met this term nor have anything to do with it, but the article was really illumintating and informative.) You might think that List of ... something like above would be just a listcruft, but it is definitely not: it is really a good article. 131.111.8.101 01:25, 2 February 2006 (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.