Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The 100 Scariest Movie Moments


 * 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The result was   nomination withdrawn. Yes I !voted but there are no remaining arguments for deletion. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:22, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

The 100 Scariest Movie Moments

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Most of this list has been deleted as a copyvio, so rather than 100 items it has just 10. There are no refs demonstrating its notability. Do we really need this? Also nominating the sister article with more of them Szzuk (talk) 20:54, 23 May 2011 (UTC) Credit to MQS and an IP editor for rescuing the article. Szzuk (talk) 07:56, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Also nominated: 30 Even Scarier Movie Moments


 * Delete - "Scariest" sez who? Original reseach. Carrite (talk) 00:57, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - Vote stricken. I don't recognize the current version of the article. Either it has been majorly overhauled or I was sniffing glue earlier. No opinion as to inclusion-worthiness. Carrite (talk) 01:09, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete (see below) per nom and Carrite - frankieMR (talk) 17:11, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep and fix through regular editing. If it were simply an unsourced list compiled by a Wikipedia editor or relfective of any Wikipedia editor's personal opinion, then we might scream WP:NOR and toss it out... but OR does not apply, as it a sourcable article about a television miniseries and editing has begun to address it as such an article, and not just a list. Liking the miniseries or not, or liking the miniseries' topic being what the filmmaker's consider the 100 scariest moments or not, are not the considerations. The production company's editorial considerations in creating their documentary miniseries is NOT original research by any Wikipedia editor.  As the miniseries is verifiable, contains many dozens of interviews of many dozens of notable individuals about the genre with which they have expertise, all we need do is find the series being the subject of critical commentary by independent secondary sources and in THAT we can find notability. An addressable issue.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 19:22, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * There are 3 google book links, but I checked and none of the links could be used as sources. I didn't check all the news items, but those I did check all seem to say the show was aired, which we know. It just doesn't look notable to me and there are currently no sources demonstrating verifiability. Szzuk (talk) 20:44, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, a few more than more that "3" books viewable online, and Wikipedia loves it when an editor leaves the comfort of a keyboard and visits a library for hardcopy resources not available online. And books can ALWAYS be used to WP:Verify facts presented in an article, or in showing a topic making it into the enduring record, be used in an article's expansion and sourcing.
 * To be noted, that when cutting the original by 90% to avoid copyvio, what was removed was information that could be rewritten contextually and sourced accordingly. While simple surgical removal is the quick approach, a more encyclopedic way to address that issue would have been to rewrite it as sourced text, with expansion of certain films spoken about in the miniseries and why they were so, as there is INDEED critical comentary about why some films were included in the documentary. Some of what was removed was Dorothy's line "Toto, I've got a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore" (polled by AFI as the most memorable line in cinema history) as being #86 in this documentary per Encyclopedia of American Cinema for Smartphones and Mobile Devices ISBN 1605011452, and that Jaws was number one on the list and that and the American Film Institute put that film at number 2 in their own list per Hollywood blockbusters: the anthropology of popular movies ISBN 1847884857, and that The Hitcher was spoken about as being on the list and why in an interview of Eric Red per Voices in the Dark: Interviews with Horror Movie Writers, Directors and Actors ISBN 078644634X, or how an interest in the horror genre might draw viewers who sppreciate such series as per The paranormal ISBN 0824210921, or how Danielle Nicolet's participatiom can be sourced per both Encyclopedia of African American actresses in film and television ISBN 0786437901 and Contemporary Theatre, Film and Televison: A Biographical Guide ISBN 0787690465. Or is it that you intended to write about sources demonstrating notability and wrote the word "verifiability" instead?   Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:13, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I can see you've put a fair amount of effort into rescuing the article already. So I suspect you or somebody else will put a decent ref in the article at some point and it will close as keep. As a sequel the other show could merge/redirect I guess. Szzuk (talk) 22:32, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Now that the list has been removed the article could stand if it meets notability (would the title require clarification that it is about a show with that name and no the actual "Top 100"?). I don't know if I'll have the time to look for sources this week, but the rationale for my previous !vote no longer applies, so I struck that and I am neutral for the moment. I agree with Szzuk that both shows could be merged, but if notability is clear for both there is no absolute reason why they couldn't stand separated - frankieMR (talk) 22:50, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Also after re-reading the feedback provided by Moonriddengirl at Articles_for_deletion/The_100_Greatest_Singers_of_All_Time I understand that it is important whether this content is transformative and not just reprinting the list, but such tranformation (say, analysis of the list contents) could easily become OR - frankieMR (talk) 22:59, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Almost anything could become OR, so we watch for such. Since this is an article about a specific television mini-series and not a list article, simply copying the list did not improve the article or the project. However, our instead giving our readers sourced encyclopedic content they can verify off the project does improve us.  In an aside, I was trying to use the wayback machine a bit earlier to track down some 2004 reviews, but at that time it was off-line.   Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 01:01, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. A regular search turned out pretty well for the subject (not so well for the sequel, but not dry either) so notability is met. Hats off to the cleanup team - frankieMR (talk) 22:13, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 30 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. This article is not a "list" of the 100 scariest movie moments but a miniseries titled "The 100 Scariest Movie Moments". Therefore the only issue is "notability" and OR doesn't come into play. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:55, 31 May 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.