Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of media using the Wilhelm scream


 * 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. .  Maxim (talk) ''' 22:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC) I feel that the consensus here is that it fails WP:NOT.

List of media using the Wilhelm scream

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

The movies on the list (some of which exceed two hours in length) are associated by having a brief sound effect, the Wilhelm scream (clip). The scream is not a notable feature of any of these movies, and certainly not a notable feature to group the movies by. Since Wikipedia is not a directory of loosely associated topics, I think the list should probably be deleted. Grace notes T § 21:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as per WP:NOT -- M2Ys4U ( talk ) 22:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete, Wikipedia is not a directory, nor is it an indiscriminate collection of information. --Core desat 22:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete seriously indiscriminate. Funny, but really very indiscriminate.  And likely largely OR, too. Guy (Help!) 22:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete wp:not a host for indiscriminate lists of crap.  ALKIVAR &trade; &#x2622; 22:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and WP:NOT.  Jonathan   Remember 9/11/01.   22:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge into Wilhelm scream as the obvious solution. The parent article isn't that large, nor can this well-written piece be understood without it.  Though they love TV shows, most Wikipedians are functionally illiterate when it comes to films or books; don't count on this article surviving the deletion process.  Mandsford 22:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:NOT. WP:NOT states that wikipedia is not "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics"--SJP 23:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge per Mandsford and also because this list is not loosely associated in that they are all linked by this common thread (the famous scream). Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 23:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per others Yamakiri on Firefox 00:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Obvious list of loosely associated topics. No merge. Crazysuit 00:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge per Mandsford. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 01:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep The Wilhelm scream is a sound effect used in well over 150 movies, songs and other media. that alone means it is not a "indiscriminate list of crap". Also this is not a directory, its a list and lists are clearly allowed on Wiki IE Category:List-Class articles|Film, nor does it qualify for any of the things under indiscriminate collection of information (IE it is not A List of Frequently Asked Questions, or a Plot summary or a Lyrics database or a Statistic or a News report or a Trivia section). SJP's info isn't even true WP:NOT goes on to say, as per the same exact paragraph and I quote "there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic, for example Nixon's Enemies List. Lists (stand-alone lists) for clarification" Another keep point is that this list contributes to the state of human knowledge, a qualifying trait for lists to stay as per previous link. Finally it is not a list of Loosely associated topics, they are all associated by the Wilhelm scream which is a part of the movie culture. Viperix 02:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The Wilhelm scream is not notable enough to define a film. You quoted, "There is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic."  None of these films make someone go, "Hey, that's the film that's known for the Wilhelm scream!"  Yes, these films are loosely associated because of a single sound effect used among them -- that is the only connection that binds them, which is definitely loose.  Lastly, what is the benefit to human knowledge to know the specific films which have used the Wilhelm scream, when you can use a reliable source that says the sound effect is played in many films across genres?  There's no need for an indiscriminate listing of titles. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * "There is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic." Is the point I was making. In the example given no one goes "oh its Ed Guthman, he is know for being Nixons enemy!" but he goes into the list because he contributes to the list topic. I believe it does benifit mankind to know which movies its in, especially for the reasons given by 23skidoo. Viperix 04:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep/redirect While I do love the article, I can see why some wouldn't feel it is compatible with Wikipedia guidelines. I suggest creating a "Media featuring the Wilhelm Scream" category instead, and categorizing the articles for the media in question.  If nothing else I have backed up this article and the edit history, and am now looking into finding or creating a GFDL-compatible home for the data elsewhere. Rob T Firefly 02:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Please take a look at Special:Contributions/Viperix and Village pump (policy). It is apparent that this user has been posting notifications about this AFD to pretty much random users and is considered excessive cross-posting.  Just wanted to give a heads up. —O (说 • 喝) 02:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Counter-comment I don't see the canvassing at all. Perhaps these users have contributed greatly to this article (as I have)  in that respect I applaud his letting me know about it - regardless of when he did it.
 * The above was my comment  master son T - C 19:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It is canvassing in that the presentation of the topic at hand was not neutral. Nonetheless, I'd be glad to see the informed users (or anyone) contribute constructive comments and arguments to this discussion. Grace notes T § 04:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Counter comment Indeed the people I informed were the people who contribute to the article regularly. IE step four of the deletion process in the deletion tag. Viperix 07:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I have gone back and made my notification on these talk pages nuetral after reading more on the deletion process. Viperix 15:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you; I appreciate that. Grace notes T § 04:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep or Merge: its a nice article no doubt. The Wilhelm scream is signature mark of movies and has been quite a staple and a part of the film industry for more than half a century.  What's different about this list than any other pages in Category:Lists of films by technical issue?  master son T - C 03:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The difference is that the association here is loose. To make this concrete, asking a culturally literate individual about association between the films Ice Age, The Incredibles, Ratatouille, and Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within will almost unequivocally produce the answer "they're computer-animated". But doing the same with Spaceballs, Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, Sailor Moon S: The Movie, and Star Wars Episode III will produce less certain results. These movies, and most movies on the list, are not notable for having the Wilhelm scream (although The Charge at Feather River and Distant Drums are). The movies themselves are only loosely binded by a feature that has been seldom noted (as opposed to a widely noted feature, such as computer animation). Grace notes T § 04:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree with Gracenotes on this, a culturally educated person, especially a film cognoscenti would certainly know about the Wilhelm scream. Also I'm unsure how its a seldom noted feature, a search on Google produces 957,000 results, and there has been a band. Viperix 11:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, the Wilhelm scream is a notable item. All that I contend is that it's not a notable enough characteristic to group movies by in a list designated for that purpose (a stand-alone list, rather than one integrated into the article). I believe that the logic of WP:DIRECTORY does apply here. Grace notes T § 04:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * First another point on notability www.cafepress.com/wilhelmscream. So besides that and all the other things already mentioned, how notable does something have to be? I also believe that the logic of WP:DIRECTORY applies only that it supports my argument in that this list is much like the example given for a stand alone list ie Nixon's Enemies List. Also in that this list complies with everything in Lists (stand alone lists). Viperix 03:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Items from the CafePress tend to be "self-published" by any individual who has sufficient graphics skills, and might not be considered a reliable source. (Although a more reliable source could lead to the creation, and subsequent AFD, of List of apparel using the Wilhelm scream!) Nixon's list has historical importance, of course: it's not the list itself, but its historical context. This list has no context outside of the Wilhelm scream, and it probably would be more useful merged into Wilhelm scream (which is a relatively short article). Grace notes T § 17:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge into Wilhelm scream. —Scott5114↗ 03:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Shorten severely and merge into Wilhelm scream. - furrykef (Talk at me) 04:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. The Wilhelm scream is considered a signature sound effect in movies and film. Having a list of media in which this is used is totally appropriate. The point isn't whether a particular film is notable just because of the scream (be serious, there aren't any except for the western that started it) in which case I guess some people don't want anything but that first film listed. But Wikipedia is supposed to be a reference, and this article is of use to film historians such as myself in identifying the many and varied films in which the scream has been used. And before anyone goes into the usual spiel regarding sources, the films themselves qualify as said sources because the existence of the sound effect can be verified by viewing said films. That said, the article could be improved greatly by adding timecodes to indicate when in the film the scream is heard. I also notice a number of entries that don't include details on the context of its use; this information should be added so the list flows better. 23skidoo 11:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, or Merge into Wilhelm scream. The list by itself is not notable, I wonder if it was split off from Wilhelm scream as a WP:NOT list-busting move. But based on other opinions, I concur that the article is not notable by itself. This not sufficient grounds to delete, IMHO, as there are many articles that are sub-articles to main articles. The Wilhelm Scream is a well-known in-joke among filmmakers and fans, so some sort of cogent list of appearances is warranted. A reader may wish to know just how widely-used the sound is, so a list of actual uses is appropriate. Thank you, Viperix, for notifying me of the AfD. I didn't feel canvassed at all. David Spalding (  ☎   ✉   ✍  ) 19:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * EXTREMELY STRONG KEEP, per others who voted to keep. --Ryanasaurus0077 20:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, otherwise merge into Wilhelm scream. --Soetermans 08:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletions.   -- the wub  "?!"  15:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOT. Keb25 15:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * EXTREMELY STRONG KEEP. The Wilhelm Scream is the epitome of a good sound effect-- versatility, clarity, and recognisability.  TheOrgg 16:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, which is good, because I'm all for keeping the Wilhelm scream article! Grace notes T § 14:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per 23skidoo, but vigorously remove any claims which cannot be independently verified (this means NO ORIGINAL RESEARCH). Burntsauce 22:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * "EXTREMELY STRONG DELETE" on the account that such a list is completely trivial and indiscriminate. Not all entries are known for the scream -- such notable insertions of the Wilhelm scream should be backed by significant coverage of secondary sources, not by editors who violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by saying, "Hey, this sounds like the Wilmhelm scream, this could be a pretty big deal to add on Wikipedia despite no evidence to support my belief, I shall add it to a list!"  All notable examples should be mentioned at Wilhelm scream, which is hardly long in the tooth to warrant a separate, indiscriminate list. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Read 23skidoo's account on references, The movies themselves are the references. Not only that but there are two references listed already on the bottom of the page. Entries are checked and rechecked by the contributors of the article. Matter of fact I'll go add more refrences right now. Viperix 03:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * comment Don't be absurd, Vipe. Unless the film credits explicitly say that the film uses the scream, you are doing Original Research. Unsourced allegations should be purged immediately; and "I know it when I hear it" is not sourcing your claim. -- Orange Mike 03:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Absurd? Absurd is expecting a sound effect to be listed in the credits. Thats like saying "you can't verify that this movie has blue in it unless the credits say so." Lets say this, If I want to say that "chapter nine of Enders Game is titled Locke and Demosthenes" Then I open the book and look at it and verify, then that book becomes my reference for saying that. It is not OR because its in something that is verifiable and published. A movie is no different, you "open" it and verify that indeed batman's suit is black in the movie, you do not look up NY times to see if there is an article telling you what color it is. The scream is no different, it is distinct and right away you can tell whether or not it is there. I did however add more sources, so that should be fixed and even if it was not I see that as an editing problem not a delete the whole article thing, since sources do exist. Viperix 16:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * comment - "right away you can tell"? That's a bold assertion, again reeking of OR; see Yamaguchi先生's remark below. -- Orange Mike  21:58, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Aye, right away you can tell. Just like my example above, if you open Enders Game and check chapter nine "right away you can tell", also if you watch the movie you can hear the scream. Its like TheOrgg said "The Wilhelm Scream is the epitome of a good sound effect-- versatility, clarity, and recognizability" I submit however that there are sources listed and if six different sources is not enough there could be more listed given time. I would also say that this debate (mine and yours) belongs in another forum (IE what constitutes a reference, if there is a place for that) Viperix 23:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep as list, not category, because a list like the present one can give the context of the scream in the movie and thus provide information that a category cannot. Usefulness is a appropriate reason for supporting a list format. The individual items need expansion, but this is an editing matter only. Most have probably been mentioned in reviews or books about the film, and thus can be sourced. Again, an editing question.DGG (talk) 15:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge and source I'm not as sure as Erik that it's all Original Research, but I agree with him and Burntsauce that assertions based on OR must go. (And no, "I know it when I hear it" is not sourcing, it's OR.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orangemike (talk • contribs) 16:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Junk trivial list, maybe put a few notable instances in the main article (a barely notable topic itself). Dannycali 19:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I do believe that I notice a trend, the people who think the topic isn't "notable" seem to think this because they have never heard of it therefore its trivial. Fortunately just because you haven't heard of a thing doesn't make it small or trivial. I think I have proven that this is notable since it has been used in movies, songs and other media, Has a store selling shirts, hats mugs and other things, and there is a band. Indiscriminate and trivial would be a list on what types of birds landed in the tree in front of my house. Viperix 16:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. A huge collection of OR and a directory.  In the main article, it should say, "The Wilhelm scream has appeared in over X movies, including AA, BB, CC, and DD."  If you say it appeared in 1000 movies, it doesn't help anyone's understanding to list every single movie it's been in.  A few examples, perhaps spread across eras and genres, would suffice. Calliopejen1 22:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Nuke per WP:SPIDER – 81.153.158.137 20:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. The Wilhelm scream is notable, indeed, but this is an unverified list (original research) and there is no way to say for certain if the bulk of these films are using the actual Wilhelm scream or a knockoff.  Yamaguchi先生 23:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep I'm very surprised this is up for deletion. It's probably the most famous sound effect in film history and it has been used in over 150 films including Bond films, all the Indiana Joneses, Star Wars and umpteen more. At the very most it should be merged into the parent article. Tilefish 08:53, 17 September 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.