Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of 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. John254 00:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Lists of films

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

The original VfD for this was kept only because the category system wasn't fully set up to replace this. As it is, it's ungainly and unmaintainable. Contested prod to see talk page, which didn't explain much since no one's used it for a year. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 18:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Previous Afds at Articles for deletion/List of movies (no consensus/keep) and Articles for deletion/List of books by title (procedural close)

Might I suggest that the nominator attempt to raise issues on the talkpage himself, before leaping straight to AFD? Especially on large and old articles, and especially on ones that he has nom'd for deletion before. From the list's talkpage note:- Possible decisions include: tagging these [lists of lists] as disambig, or moving them to portalspace, or leaving them as they are, or something else. I have no preference, but do wish people would stop trying to afd/discuss them all individually. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The category still looks disorganized and clunky... I'd much prefer to use this article. --Rividian (talk) 19:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Dijointed/clumsy/poorly written articles are not a reason for delete.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 19:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep a good example of why WP:USEFUL gets a bad rap. JJL (talk) 20:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - I removed the prod tag, and was still in the process of writing the talkpage note (Talk:Lists of films) and note to the nom (User talk:David Fuchs).
 * Keep per Wisdom89 and JJL Lugnuts (talk) 20:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep How else are people that are searching for List of movies gonna get what they want? They'd have to keep on searching, it would be annoying, this* page makes things easy. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 20:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect to the category. If the category is disorganized, fix it. Collectonian (talk) 21:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure that redirecting to a category isn't acceptable. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 21:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * If not, then Delete. Unnecessary and seemingly endless and indiscriminate list of lists. This is already adequately covered by the category. Collectonian (talk) 22:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Our category system is inconsistent, poorly-maintained, and has an inadequate interface (hard to get any kind of overview of it, without resorting to Catgraph). Most readers don't even notice it. See also WP:LOSE for why that is a poor afd argument, and Categories, lists, and navigational templates for the editing guideline. Thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 09:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. It's a little clunky but provides needed navigational overview. Why force people to muck about in categories? --Dhartung | Talk 22:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Obvious keep. In what way is this page "unmaintainable"? The list is a useful navigational aid that provides greater organization and structure than what a category is capable of, so it's hardly redundant. PC78 (talk) 00:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Page is the top tier of a navigation system, perfectly in line the second point of LIST. Sjakkalle (Check!)  07:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - The only reason that a :Cat and a Article cannot coexist is if the Article does not bring anything to the table that a simple :Cat listing cannot do. In this case it is doing that by giving Readers multiple meathods (all in 1 Article/place) of doing just that. Exit2DOS2000   •T•C•  08:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Snowball keep Sometimes lists are better than categories, and this is a good example. -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 22:54, 10 March 2008 (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.