Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of horror films: 2010s


 * 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   keep. Scott Mac (Doc) 21:04, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

List of horror films: 2010s

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Not a crystal ball. Seems to be a dumping ground for "upcoming" movies, some of which are rumors and not even in production. Xsmasher (talk) 07:43, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep AfD is not cleanup. As we're already in 2010, most of the films scheduled for release this year should have a RS to verify that. Ditto for anything post 2010 - if it can't be sourced, it needs to be removed until such sources exist.  Lugnuts  (talk) 10:16, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Per nominator. Fails WP:CRYSTAL. And is Jennifer Aniston really going to star in "Leprechaun Returns"? Warrah (talk) 13:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Be bold and clean up such falsehoods. Erik (talk) 14:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Be bolder and delete the mess! :) Warrah (talk) 20:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Lugnuts cleaned up the article since only part of the content was inappropriate. Do you still want to delete the entire topic despite this cleanup? Erik (talk) 19:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep if pared to confirmed films. Acceptable method of categorization by decade, even if we're only two months into said decade. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 21:26, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Symbol kept vote.svg Prune all entries with no citations. AFD is not a garbage incinerator.--Ipatrol (talk) 22:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete: per nom, WP:DIRECTORY and as one of the most poorly sourced and hoax infused articles on Wikipedia. Toddst1 (talk) 06:10, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep valid list of upcoming horror films. AfD is not clean-up.  If the list suffices when it is well-sourced, then fixing the sources is the approach to take. Erik (talk) 14:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: This can be brought up to snuff of other lists such as the list of 1930s horror films which is cited. I've tried discussing with the main contributor to this article User:Zombie433, but he or she just keeps deleting and talk messages I leave for them. Any idea on how to approach this? Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:55, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Every bit as valid as List of horror films: 2000s and all the rest. This one's much more a work-in-progress than the others, but with sourcing, that shouldn't matter. Even if we were to remove the up-coming films (not necessary if they're sourced, and the list is maintained), we're already into 2010, and I believe there have been a couple-or-three horror films released, justifying the list. Dekkappai (talk) 14:58, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: See WP:OSE. Toddst1 (talk) 17:17, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * How about you learn to debate by saying what you mean instead of mis-using Wikispeak? Pointing to "OSE" in an AfD on one article out of a series of articles linked by year or decade is a spurious counter-argument. And while you're at it, read the "Directory" one you inappropriately use above to justify your vote. There is no rational way lists of notable film releases in a specific year and genre can be considered "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics, Genealogical entries, The White or Yellow Pages, Directories, directory entries, electronic program guide, or resource[s] for conducting business, Sales catalogs, Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations, or A complete exposition of all possible details." If you get that through your head, my time spent looking at that inappropriate link and spurious argument will not have been in vain. Best regards and happy editing. Dekkappai (talk) 17:34, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:OSE is appropriate. It's unfortunate you felt compelled to resort to an ad hominem argument. Toddst1 (talk) 17:46, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:OSE says to consider precedent and consistency of similar articles. The preexisting lists show that this one is just the next in line.  Surely there are issues with part of the content, but it is indisputable that there are already horror films for this decade. Erik (talk) 18:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: Not really. It says that reasoning should be applied to arguments.  So if one is using OSE as an argument, one should explain why and not just state the fact.  Similarly, in refuting a OSE argument, an explanation of why the OSE argument can be considered invalid should be provided.  At least that's how I read it.  Wikipeterproject (talk) 21:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Dekkappai used reasoning in his argument. He said that similar lists existed and that there are already released horror films this decade that justify the list.  If all the unreleased films and red links are an issue, we can hack away at them, but that will still leave a set of released horror films that will no doubt grow throughout this decade. Erik (talk) 22:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. A huge number of the entries are nothing but an attempt to end run WP:NFF and WP:CRYSTAL to talk about movies that are coming up, but haven't had significant coverage. At first glance, the article looks well sourced, until you look at the sources. Most are from 2 sources, dreadcentral.com and bloody-disgusting.com. I'm not convince either or both would pass as RS's. In all, it would be better served as a category rather than an article. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:05, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * We already have lists by decade at List of horror films. There are already horror films that have come out for this decade so far.  At the very least, the list is able to list films that have come out or films that are completed and are being promoted presently.  Part of this topic's content is problematic, not the very topic itself. Erik (talk) 20:55, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, part of a Wikipedia essay on deletion debates, suggests that the fact that similar articles exist is not really a valid argument to keep a page.  debate discussions ought to centre around consensus policy.  Wikipeterproject (talk) 19:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Please read the relevant passage again: "In general, these deletion debates should focus mainly on the nominated article. In consideration of precedent and consistency, though, identifying articles of the same nature that have been established and continue to exist on Wikipedia may provide extremely important insight into general notability of concepts, levels of notability (what's notable: international, national, regional, state, provincial?), and whether or not a level and type of article should be on Wikipedia." The fact that multiple lists of horror films by decade exist provides "extremely important insight" on the discussion for this list article.  The issue with the article is a clean-up issue.  The precedent argument applies here to keep the list; we should focus our efforts on cleaning it up and maintaining it properly. Erik (talk) 21:28, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep: Why not go through the article and remove the unsourced bits?  AfD should not be used as your personal army.  The ones being sourced by BD and DC wouldn't have anything to do with your decision, would it?  —  Mike   Allen   23:20, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Shouldn't such a list form a category rather than a stand alone article?  See WP:CAT, which is Wikispeak for the Wikipedia guideline on the use of the categorization feature of the wiki software!  Wikipeterproject (talk) 19:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The category already exists: Category:2010s horror films. This does not mean a list is forbidden.  We use lists for films all across the board; is there really a non-category reason why we should not have such a list?  WP:CLN says, "The grouping of articles by one method neither requires nor forbids the use of the other methods for the same informational grouping. Instead, each method of organizing information has its own advantages and disadvantages, and is applied for the most part independently of the other methods following the guidelines and standards that have evolved on Wikipedia for each of these systems." Erik (talk) 19:28, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: If the list article is only going to contain films already in Wikipedia, it is merely a duplicate of the category and, in my opinion, not necessary.  If it includes films not notable enough for a stand-alone article, it serves its own purpose.  But that raises the question - what's the point of a list with lots of "red links"?  it serves no purpose, as by definition, the list can say very little about the contents therein.  I'll stick with "delete", i think!  Wikipeterproject (talk) 20:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Like I quoted above, the existence of a category does not forbid a list for the same set of films. In addition, if you think that some red links do not belong in the list, we can discuss removing them.  However, you cannot dispute that there have been horror films released this decade so far and that there will inevitably be more horror films forthcoming.  The article needs to be cleaned up, not deleted. Erik (talk) 21:28, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete fails WP:CRYSTAL, also, adds nothing beyond Category:2010s horror films Dlabtot (talk) 21:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:CRYSTAL does not apply to the state of the article. There are already horror films that have come out this decade.  At the very least, we should trim the problematic entries.  It is common sense to assume that this decade will see more horror films.  In addition, WP:CLN clearly states that the existence of a category does not forbid a list. Erik (talk) 21:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment I've now removed all redlinked titles that had no sources. Please feel free to prune any I've missed. I'll try to get RS for any unsourced blue-linked articles too. Hopefully this is the start of keeping this article.  Lugnuts  (talk) 10:08, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note to closing admin: This AfD seems to have come of the back of this spam report with the AfD nominator removing the links that are being used as (valid) sources.  Lugnuts  (talk) 12:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: The presence of bad entries in a list (even lots of them) is not a good reason for deleting the list itself, so I think anything that cannot be properly sourced should be removed (which Lugnuts appears to have started on - nice work). Also, even if WP:CRYSTAL applies to some entries in the list, it does not apply to the list itself - there are some films in the list that have already been released, and there are certain to be a lot more -- Boing!   said Zebedee  10:49, 20 February 2010 (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.