Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of short nz films


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:07, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

List of short nz films

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This article consists entirely of (a) unreferenced comparison of short films in N America and the rest of the world, and (b) synopses and credits for a selection of recent films. The first part is copied directly from Short film and the remainder is all lifted directly from the site http://www.nzfilm.co.nz. The synopses have now been reworded or removed. With the possible exception of The Six Dollar Fifty Man, none of the films seems to be notable and as all the article has on any of the films is copied directly from the nzfilm site, there is nothing that can be retained, even for films which are notable. Delete. I42 (talk) 07:39, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Should be converted into a category if recreated. Plus, How long is "short"? 60 minutes? 100 minutes? Minima  c  ( talk )
 * Delete Reads like an advert for someone's list of newly discovered (non-notable) films. Nothing here that isn't already covered in the short film article. Minimac - a short film is usually less than 40 minutes.  Lugnuts  (talk) 08:50, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - per above. reads like an add. Shadowjams (talk) 10:06, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Copyvio of [], therefore speediable. However, the other reasons for deletion cited do not comply with the relevant policies and guidelines, and should be disregarded. It would be perfectly possible to have a List of short films from New Zealand with this title as a redirect to it. "None of the films seems to be notable" is not a valid challenge, because individual elements of a list do not have to be notable.  "Should be converted into a category" is not a valid challenge, because WP:CLN says that lists and categories can and should co-exist.  "Reads like an advert" is not a valid challenge because it's a signal to rewrite, not a signal to delete.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  11:08, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:43, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:44, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. I can't see any circumstances under which we would want to have a Wikipedia article consisting mainly of the credits and plot summaries of several films which are unrelated except by their country of origin and length. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:27, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I declined the nomination for speedy as a copyvio because the copied text is exclusively information — saying that actor A played character B, actress C played character D, etc., isn't imaginative — except for the summaries, which as the nom noted have been reworded or removed. I don't see why this isn't a valid article topic, but I can well understand that this isn't the article to have on the topic.  Nyttend (talk) 01:28, 20 April 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.