Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of years in film


 * 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 No Consensus... so Keep by default. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

List of years in film

 * — (View AfD)

Delete - I'm unconvinced of the necessity or utility of this article. It duplicates the efforts of the articles categorized in Category:Films by decade and its various sub-cats. Add to that the POV problems inherent in any article that describes its included examples as "significant" and the very good likelihood that there will be fighting over what single event gets listed with what year as the "significant" one and the article just seems like way more trouble than any encyclopedic worth it might have. Otto4711 05:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete unmaintainable. --Ryan Delaney talk 06:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * keep per nomOo7565 06:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * "Keep per nom"? That doesn't make any sense. The nominator implicitly voted to delete the article. Zetawoof(&zeta;) 07:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. The choices of which films or events are worthy of notice is essentially a subjective one. Zetawoof(&zeta;) 07:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. MER-C 13:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete it lacks information
 * Keep. I just stumbled onto this discussion, when I clicked on the list as a way to navigate through the years in film.  It was precisely the page I was looking for.  I see no need to delete, and the page serves a purpose. Kgwo1972 19:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)  Edit: I also note that six other languages have the same page.  You could list the Best Film and largest grossing film as subjective events. Kgwo1972 19:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep If it's good enough for a category it's good enough for a list. Also, we have the same sorta thing for music, so it's not as if we don't have a precedent. Jcuk 00:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm. That article has a lot of the same problems, but at least limits itself to listing a few really noteworthy events on particular years, rather than picking five or six events for each year, as this list does. I suppose this list might be rescuable if an objective criteria for "important" films were determined which would trim things down. Perhaps list the film with the single highest gross revenue for each year? Zetawoof(&zeta;) 02:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Very Strong Keep. This is how the guys at the various film wikiprojects organise their work. Deleting this list and its sub-lists would be wrong both in principle and in terms of the amount of extra work it would generate. The argument in the nomination that duplication with a category justifies deletion is fundamentally flawed. List are never made redundant by categories. AndyJones 08:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The year-specific lists aren't under discussion. It's just this single summary page that's being nominated for deletion. Zetawoof(&zeta;) 11:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Noted, but this article is part of the navigational structure. No merit in dismantling part of it. Besides, a delete here would set a bad precedent if someone deletion-happy were to start proposing the underlying articles for deletion. (There seems to be a lot of deletion-happiness about at the moment. I seem to have spent the last couple of days doing nothing but protecting good work from ill-conceived AfDs. But I digress.) The important point about this article is its place in the organisational structure. Most delete voters here don't seem to like the "significant examples" (although I like them, and it seems to me they can be cleaned up and verified just like anything else). But the examples are just window dressing, and they could be removed or replaced with something else. The CORE of this article is that it's at the heart of the navigational scheme for organising films on Wikipedia, and that is why I'm so strongly in favour of keeping it. AndyJones 13:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I did not say that the article was duplicated by a category. I said that the article was duplicated by the articles housed in that category. Otto4711 15:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak keep and cleanup as needed. This page is pretty harmless and there's evidence that it is sometimes used as a navigation tool. Pascal.Tesson 09:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Very Strong Keep. This is a perfect chronology, highly useful for navigation - agree it needs improvement on content. Jbmas99 19:27, 7 January 2007 (GMT)
 * Neutral . I agree that all the content attached to the years is POV and has to go. However this page is the only way (until now) to navigate in all years in the Years in film series. Please note that in (say) 1995 in film, in the navigation template at the top right, the top leftmost link "Years in film" redirects here. We could replace the content of this page with a more compact navigation, so one doesn't have to scroll down to come to the present. We could also just transclude a template. Alternately, we could put the overall year navigation in each year, but that would be very problematic in the latest years which are very very long and overloaded with tables etc. Hoverfish Talk 21:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I change my previous opinion to Keep: The work Jbmas99 has done since yeasterday is turning this list to a valuable timeline/event article. It still must be cleaned from previous POV film entries though. Hoverfish Talk 13:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as expandable into a highly useful chronology and already a good navigation aid. Eluchil404 09:31, 11 January 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.