Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of zombie 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   keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:21, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

List of zombie films

 * – ( View AfD View log )

What distinguishesthis list from Category:Zombie films is three things: rampant original research, continual addition of questionable items, and the inclusion of large numbers of entirely non-notable elements. If you remove those it becomes redundant to the category. Guy (Help!) 22:06, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - you missed one important distinguishing trait: the category has no sources listed, where as the list does - all be it few.  So therefore if one of these should be deleted to reduce redundancy, it should probably the category.  But I'd keep that too.  Some people navigate through categories. At least with the list there is a framework to work from, categories it seems are for some reason even less sourced than lists.  Anyway, all of the arguments you made against the list, could be made about the category too.  Actually ... make that Speedy Keep.  -- Trippz  01:15, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Far away from speedy keep criteria, which are located here. Shadowjams (talk) 10:36, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Wrong. Obvious case of #2-4, and possibly #2-2.  Bad faith and prejudicial nom. -- Trippz  11:16, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep There are lists for roughly every other genre and sub genre; and the social and cultural impact of zombie films justify this list. --Williamsburgland (talk) 02:35, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * OTHERSTUFF Shadowjams (talk) 10:36, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Categories and list articles serve different functions, see WP:CAT & WP:LIST, each has its own disadvantages and advantages, there is no redundancy in having both as per the very relevant WP:CLN, I think the basis of the nom is therefore flawed. Nor would I describe the article as having rampant original research.Number36 (talk) 03:53, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep WP:CLN says specifically that categories and lists do not compete and that one should not be deleted on account of the other. I have just added Zombie Driftwood - a recent release that doesn't have its own article yet.  A category is no help in such a case. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:25, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - List could certainly be beefed up in terms of references, but I see no valid policy-based reason for deleting it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:07, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep I will echo what the others have already said. This list is justified and useful.  Categories suck.  Lists are better. 19:50, 21 December 2010 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.73.197.35 (talk)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:07, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No analysis. Shadowjams (talk) 10:36, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Articles and categories go hand-in-hand per WP:CLN. The list is a notable subject with clear inclusion criteria. Just because there are red-links, doesn't mean the entries are not notable.  Lugnuts  (talk) 13:35, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep per WP:NOTDUP which specifically excludes the rationale for deletion. Everything else can, and should, be fixed through normal editing. AfD is not cleanup.  Jim Miller  See me 17:01, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. If you kill it, it'll just come back anyway. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:48, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 24 December 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.