Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of teen films (2nd nomination)


 * 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, with the hope that the improvement spurred by the threat of deletion will continue after the threat is lifted. JohnCD (talk) 15:58, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

List of teen films

 * – ( View AfD View log )

As it stands, this unreferenced article seems to fail WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Although there is a supposed criteria for inclusion, teen film, as is indicated on the article's talk page, the article is messy and most of the films in the article don't seem to fulfil the criteria for inclusion. In practice the criteria that is being used to justify addition seems to be "any film that remotely involves teens or the mention of the word "teen", or a bikini". This is one of those films that really needs Cleanup attached. I'd like to suggest that anyone considering voting "keep" on this one tries to clean up the article first. It's very likely to change your opinion. AussieLegend (talk) 06:55, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * It failed deletion twice already. Unfortunately it didn't seem to receive much activity on these occasions. I was reluctant to nominate it again. As AussieLegend said anyone who opposes the deletion seriously needs to clarify the purpose of the list, and to set limites on what should be there and more importantly what should not be there. I hate to see good faith efforts deleted but the list is mess. I would support giving an active editor a few days to move a few good bits to more appropriate places or to create lists with a more clearly defined scope but the list seems beyond saving.
 * The list itself is unmaintained, unverified and poorly defined. The idea of "teen films" really needs better academic references, and to stick to the classics or well identified subsets such as John Hughes films. A category and a short article, possibly the existing Teen film article seems like a far better way to do things. -- Horkana (talk) 17:57, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Per nom; I was told that "significant antitrust cases" was just too amorphous and subjective to be a category and if that was true, then a fortiori this list is too amorphous and subjective to be an article. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 20:27, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. For better or worse, teen themes seem to be taking over the movies. A list that could, if broadly construed, include half of Hollywood's current output is too broadly defined. --NellieBly (talk) 00:38, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:16, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:19, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: Challenge accepted! I will attempt to vet the list to ensure that the items belong. My brief research shows that "teen movie" is the most common descriptor, so I will be using that in Google News Archive Search and Google Books Search. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 14:15, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I referenced a number of films. Obviously I cannot do it all at once, but I'm certainly trying! :) This is what you can do if you want to help. In Google News Archive Search, search for a string like the following query: "just one of the guys" "teen movie"|"teen film"|teenpic. You can also open a new tab to use the same query in Google Books Search. (I think that Google Books Search is more useful, though.) If you find a film mentioned on a book's page, check for other titles that could be covered, too. The article uses a couple of books as references, so check the article to see how to make footnotes based on them if you find pages in these books. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 15:38, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


 * It's a very good start. If the article was clearly limited and we had a consensus on the Talk page that no further films were allowed without a supporting citation then at least I'd be assured the article would not get any worse. I could withdraw my call to delete the article with clearly defined limitations on the article. -- Horkana (talk) 16:16, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep It is remarkably easy to find sources for this topic such as Teen Film: A Critical Introduction and Teen dreams: reading teen film from Heathers to Veronica Mars. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:03, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep As since it was nominated, the nominator's concerns are being addressed and article is no longer unsourced. While AFD is not to intended to force cleanup, it seems to have done just that. Use of a little research to address the earlier lack of effort shows that the article and the project will beneift from regular editing.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 01:11, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * AfDs often generate a flurry of cleanup activity. Unfortunately, all too often the activity stops after the AfD ends with a keep or the nominator, in good faith, withdraws the nomination because cleanup seems to be progressing. Last May I nominated the articles of 18 non-notable weekend netball players and it generated a similar flurry. Since I withdrew the nomination, the vast majority of articles have seen no direct attempt at improvement. It's nice to see that this article is being improved but the major concern that I had when nominating was the lack of a clear criteria for inclusion. The potential for this article to turn into a mess again still exists and despite the good intentions of those who attacked it for 3 hours or so, there are still many films that shouldn't be in the article. This and the lack of a clear inclusion criteria mean the article is a long way from being out of the woods. --AussieLegend (talk) 01:53, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * So many sports that use a ball and a net... basketball, tennis, badmitten, ping-pong, socker.... so pardon, but I do not know of your earlier AFD and I'm sorry that netball improvements encouraged by that earlier nomination elsewhere did not continue, but such happens.  A concern that inexperienced editors might mess up ANY article is a valid worry, but it happens.  This is why we keep a watch.  And in this case, your concerns seem more now a matter for editing, a discussion of criteria, keeping a watch for improper edits, and a protection from vandalism... but not for deletion of the entire article.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 02:40, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Regardless of how many edits are made, without a clear criteria for inclusion, the article still fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE, which is justification for deletion of the entire article. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:35, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * As the defined topic of what constitutes a teen film is itself covered in multiple sources (as well as the few offered above by others), and that the list is not a "Plot-only description of fictional works", I do not see a call of "indescriminate" as being applicable. And so long as this list does not contain something that is not a teen film, we'll be fine. Thanks.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 06:55, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Have you had a look at the history of this article? Clearly, from the range of films that have been added over the years, the present criteria is insufficient. The article contains lots of "something that is not a teen film", which is why it ended up here. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:12, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Being a topic mis-understood by those making good faith edits in the past is a reason to keep on eye on it and to clarify what merits inclusion or not, certainly... but that same diligence applies to any article on Wikipedia. But again, and as the defined topic of what constitutes a teen film is itself covered in multiple sources, allowing those willing and able to improve it and source (myself included), will improve the article and the project... no matter what may have happened in the past or what might happen in the future or how long it might take.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 10:05, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If you go all the way back to when the article was created you can see that a lot of the mess was there from start, it was a big long unverified, poorly defined list that only got worse with time. -- Horkana (talk) 16:15, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * AussieLegend, can you take a look at the talk page? I added a notice listing criteria for the list. I will try to reference some more today if I am not too busy. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 13:20, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment The problem of vague criteria for inclusion here is similar to the problem at List of fictional antiheroes. That article has been kept in some degree of order by User:Edward321, who has been very diligent in reverting any addition that is unsourced.  Thus the criterion for inclusion in that list became simply that a character had to have been explicitly called an anti-hero in a reliable source.  I think if this list is to stay the same kind of thing needs to happen here – take out any original research and keep only films that have been described as teen films by a reliable source.  An edit notice might be invaluable for giving new users a nutshell-version of the relevant parts WP:V&thinsp;/&thinsp;WP:OR&thinsp;/&thinsp;WP:RS and stating upfront that unsourced additions will be removed.  Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 11:52, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep as an appropriate list of films in a given genre. The list is not indiscriminate any more than other genres, though there should be a higher expectation of verifiability due to the genre having different elements like beach parties, musicals, horror, melodrama, etc. I referenced all the films listed in the 1950s and 1960s and made it through most of the 1970s. On the talk page, I added criteria to use to add a film to the list, such as having multiple sources. For example, if a minor newspaper calls a film a "teen movie" but the label is not reiterated, it likely does not qualify. The best sources are the literature that study the genre and provide numerous examples. One discussion to be had is how to treat horror films, of which there are a lot in this list. I've run into limitations of previewing books due to searching so much, so if you can, please help reference the other films. Use "teen movie"|"teen film"|"teenpic" plus the title in Google Books Search and Google News Archive Search to find results. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 18:06, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Per Erik.  And agree that afd should not be used for clean-up.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:58, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why people are raising the cleanup issue, the article wasn't nominated to generate a cleanup. It was nominated for deletion because it was a massive, messy list of 818 movies, many of which don't belong in it, showing that the inclusion criteria wasn't sufficient. That has been demonstrated well by the fact that more than 150 movies have been removed since it was nominated. It contains no encyclopaedic analysis of any of the movies and serves only as a directory of possibly teen related movie articles at Wikipedia. Even now, with 101 of the 668 movies referenced, that's still the case. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:49, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * When an editor says that an article was nominated for deletion "because it was ... messy", it suggests that the problem that the editor had was the mess. We don't delete articles at AfD because they are messy.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:56, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't say it was nominated because it was messy. The reason for nomination was in the first sentence of the nomination. The second and subsequent sentences are for clarification purposes and explain some of the issues that prevent this article being brought to a standard that justifies its retention. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:09, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You wrote, directly above: "It was nominated for deletion because it was a massive, messy list of 818 movies, many of which don't belong in it, showing that the inclusion criteria wasn't sufficient." That's good reason for a cleanup tag to be applied. Or -- better yet, IMHO -- for a discussion to be started on the article talkpage, and/or on the talkpages of any relevant wikiprojects. It is not a reason, however, to bring an article to AfD, or to delete it. As the guideline makes quite clear, in bold letters:  "Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, an associated WikiProject, or on the article's talk page, and/or adding a cleanup tag, instead of bringing the article to AfD. If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD."--Epeefleche (talk) 10:16, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry if you were confused by what I wrote, but I suggest you read everything I wrote and not just pick on a few points. As I also said above, "It contains no encyclopaedic analysis of any of the movies and serves only as a directory of possibly teen related movie articles at Wikipedia. Even now, with 101 of the 668 movies referenced, that's still the case." The very first thing I wrote, which was the reason for nomination itself, was "As it stands, this unreferenced article seems to fail WP:INDISCRIMINATE". Together these explain the reason for nomination and explain the reasoning behind the nomination, ie the justification for it being a hopeless case. I hope that clears it up for you. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:27, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Apologies if I remain somewhat flummoxed. But "It contains no encyclopaedic analysis" begs the question of whether through normal editing, what you view as a reason for deletion (I don't--we have all manner of such lists, and they are clearly acceptable if such text could be written) could be "fixed through normal editing.  The same with your second point -- which begs the same question quite candidly, when it starts with "As it stands".  If those two "deficiencies", if they are such, can be fixed through normal editing, per the AfD guidelines you are suggested to not bring the article to AfD, but rather to seek to fix it, either through normal editing or through the tagging/discussion process I described above.  Neither of your points suggest that it is a hopeless case -- only that in your view, as the article stands now and without those efforts having been made, you view it as deficient.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:59, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Anything can be fixed through normal editing. That part of the guideline has to taken with a grain of salt. If we take that on face value then no article should be deleted, ever. The fact is this article is just a list with very little value and nobody has shown any ongoing interest in maintaining it. I'd argue that it fails both WP:DIRECTORY and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. It's only value seems to be that it is a directory and that's no value at all according to What Wikipedia is not. That we may have other such articles is really right in WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS territory. History shows that there is very little interest in fixing this article through normal editing. It's only been since it was nominated that any interest has been shown and, like most AfDs, that's likely to stop the instant the discussion is closed. Could it be fixed through normal editing? Yes. Will the article be fixed through normal editing? That's the real question that needs to be answered and the likelihood, based on the 3.7 year history of this article, is a resounding  NO  which makes it a hopeless case and worthy only of deletion. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:33, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Not everything can be fixed through normal editing, especially when it comes to verifiability, which is the key policy here. If we cannot verify a topic or a passage about that topic, we should not have it. I'm not sure why you argue that the list is indiscriminate; there are several references I've used in the list so far that would be great for the genre article as they talk about the evolution of the genre across the decades. The films are not just loosely associated with each other; as we can see, Tropiano references many films across decades as part of his genre study. I understand that lists can become unmaintainable, but the situation is much better here than it was before. We could actually go as far as deleting all the unreferenced entries and still have a pretty good list to share with readers, referencing new entries as they come in. It is unlikely that this article will be deleted, and it is just as unlikely that the list's new references will be blanked. I hope you can at least provide a reference or two; the later decades are ripe for weeding. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 13:31, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Claims that the article is "messy" is not a valid reason for deletion. The topic clearly notable.  The only problem I can see is that some of the items aren't sourced.  That can easily be fixed through normal editing of the article.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:11, 26 February 2011 (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.