Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of monster movies


 * 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. Movies that are not supported by reliable sources to be considered "monster movies" should be removed. However, the list itself has a sufficiently clear scope. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 05:37, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

List of monster movies

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

List with ill-defined scope. We do have a monster movie article where landmark films are discussed. But the list here is not manageable. Pichpich (talk) 09:20, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Confused nomination. 1)Having a monster movie article does not make the list redundant (quite the opposite, they reinforce each other) 2)I fail to see why the scope is ill-defined or the list is "not manageable". -- Cycl o pia talk  12:52, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I suppose I wasn't clear enough. What I meant by "we have a monster movie article" was simply that it might suggest that the scope of the list is clear. However that's not the case. Is Freddy Krueger a monster? Is any alien a monster? Does that make Mars Attacks! a monster movie? Is any ghost a monster? Is Ghostbusters a monster movie? How about Casper the Friendly Ghost? The introductory sentence of the article is all over the place. This is what makes the list unmanageable: it will always be someone's arbitrary list. Pichpich (talk) 13:26, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, no. It is enough to have a source which defines it a monster movie, or that makes it clear it matches the description of a monster movie. This will require some pruning and work, but deletion is the opposite of improvement, see deletion policy. -- Cycl o pia talk  15:19, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Leonard Maltin's 2009 movie guide uses the term "monstrous demon" referring to the Freddy Krueger movies. "The horror film reader, p 232" says Freddie is a monster. Monsters in Ghostbusters? Yes, per "Heroes, monsters & messiahs, p187. Monsters in "Mars Attacks?" Yes, per "The war of the worlds: Mars' invasion of Earth," page xviii. "Caspar the Friendly Ghost?" No refs found indicating it was a monster movie, and I do not see that it was listed in the article. We do not delete lists because someone might add an inappropriate member. But this is a topic which belongs on the article's talk page. AFD is not an editing process. Edison (talk) 17:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep The scope is broad, but it is clearly defined in the introduction - using its own criteria the answer to the above questions would be yes for all of them. Kmusser (talk) 14:44, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well a list that links Casper the Friendly Ghost with Nightmare on Elm Street is dangerously close to a random association of loosely related topics. More fundamentally, it's original research. Pichpich (talk) 15:31, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Your comment only means that the list needs editing, not that the article subject is intrinsically not suitable. -- Cycl o pia ][[User talk:Cyclopia| talk 15:39, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't say the definition was necessarily correct, just that it was clear and thus that the list is definable. What that definition is would be a content debate and outside the scope of AFD. Kmusser (talk) 00:25, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Unnecessary list that is more fancruft than encyclopedic. And "The Hunchback of Notre Dame" is not a monster movie! Joal Beal (talk) 15:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, then remove it from the list. WP:UNENCYC covers the rest. -- Cycl o pia talk  15:19, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Whether it was a "monster movie" is discussed in "France and the Americas: culture, politics, and history, Volume 1, page 584, which says it was conceived as a monster movie and a love story. In the original novel, Hugo has characters refer to the hunchback specifically as "a monster." But this discussion belongs on the talk page of the article. Edison (talk) 17:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The Hunchback of Notre Dame was the first of the seminal Universal Monsters that pretty much defined the genre for much of the 20th century. It likewise starred Lon Chaney who is also associated with the genre. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * keep A helpful and appropriate list which goes with Monster and Monster movie. If there is an entry which does not belong, then remove it via the editing process, or bring up your concern on the article's talk page to see if there is a consensus on the appropriateness of the item in the list. There are many reliable sources, such as books on movies and books specifically on monster movies, so it is not "original research" to say that the various "Frankenstein" movies are "monster movies." See Google book search and specifically "The essential monster movie guide: a century of creature features on film". Only monster movies notable enough to have a Wikipedia article would go in such a list, and lists are complementary to categories. Standard books on movies describe many as "monster movies." Edison (talk) 17:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Defined list on a notable subject.  Lugnuts  (talk) 17:18, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The scope of the list is just fine. AFD is not cleanup but I have added an appropriate category, reflist and sample entry (Snakes on a Plane) with a citation to show how it's done. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:56, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Although it's clear that the article will be kept, it provides no useful information -- the year of release is of zero benefit in determining anything about a film -- nor do I expect that it will in the future. Essentially, every addition to the list follows the same lazy format of a title and a year.  The most recent additions are from a bunch of IP-addresses who are under the delusion that they are contributing something .  I can imagine saying to themselves "that's a good movie, that's a good movie, that's a good movie" (yes, I suppose that we could call The Terminator a "monster movie", though most people wouldn't).  I applaud Colonel W. for setting an example by adding a source, but what this list really needs is something describing what made the movie a "monster movie", not what year in came out.  Many of the titles are self-explanatory, but most aren't.  I think that if someone were to make a note of what the "monster" was, they would see that a lot of the additions don't belong on here.  Mandsford 14:25, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Lots of good points, none of them is relevant for deletion. You describe a lot of reasonable issues which can all be dealt with editing, so no reason to remove it. -- Cycl o pia talk  14:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Consensus is for keep anyway, so after it closes, the pruning can begin. Mandsford 17:10, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Keep this article is necessary. But, before I argue, if you're gonna delete this article, you might as well delete every single list from Wiki. If you want a "encyclopedic" site, there should be no lists. But, there are so many lists and people need lists for research INCLUDING on the history of monster movies that this should be kept. I worked hard on making this article on or more wiki standards. 174.16.80.109 (talk) 23:02, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Several people appear to be working on this list, so I expect that it will progress beyond a group of names in alphabetical order. It certainly has the potential to become an interesting and useful article.  Mandsford 14:02, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Well defined genre, so a list of thosefilms notable enough to have WP articles is appropriate4. That makes it nont indiscriminate, gives a good basis for incclusion, and has the potential to be more than just the list of names. (I don;t understand the argument that the year of release is irrelevant--very useful for browsing for those who do not already have an encyclopedic knowledge).
 * Keep Useful list of valid encyclopedic information.  D r e a m Focus  08:29, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep- despite being poorly sourced, more than a little crufty, and the inclusion criterion being a rather vague (what makes the Invisible Man a monster for instance?) I'm prepared to give it the benefit of the doubt. It's possible that these are problems than can be fixed by regular editing, though I have serious doubts. And please note that a provisional keep now would not prevent the article being renominated in six months or a year if the promised improvements haven't happened. Reyk  YO!  03:42, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep and WP:SNOW. Although it is neither interesting nor useful right now, I think that it will become so.    I'm not entirely sure how to do a sortable table, but that would be a good improvemen.  Mandsford 23:04, 23 May 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.