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 Delete -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC) reply

List of cult films

List of cult films (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)

This list was originally part of Cult films before being split off recently. Prior to being split off, I tagged this list section as being unreferenced and requested references from editors and from the Wiki Film project to verify that the list was something that was objective, verifiable and not original research. The reason is that this list of films appears to be simply an ad hoc collection of films that various editors personally believe should be called cult films, rather than films which published resources commonly refer to as cult films or that is based on a neutral criteria. Since the unref tag was placed, however, no improvement was made to the references or to show that the list is anything other than original research, and in fact the list has continued to grow with little to no evidence or discussion and no verification. Now that the list is in a seperate article, though, I am submitting it for deletion as unreference, original research. It should not be remerged with the main article, in my opinion, unless and until the reference and OR issues are properly addressed. Dugwiki 21:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC) reply

• Keep or Remerge for such a long list there is no way and is unrealistic to find reference for every one of them (and in actuality at wikipedia we can hardly find a list with all entries referenced). Also there is no universal standard for cult films, a little editorial discretion is needed. I suggest it to be kept for now or to be remerged with cult film or cult classic. Wooyi 21:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC) reply

You actually are making a strong case for deletion. If it is unrealistic to find references for the items on the list, and there is in fact no universal standard for cult films, then this list is by definition subjective and original research. Articles and sections which are neither referenced nor neutrally biased and that can't be corrected need to be deleted. Dugwiki 22:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC) reply

If you argue this way, then we should require reference on every item on every list. Currently, you cannot even find a single long list on wikipedia to have all items referenced. Wooyi 22:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Technically, ideally, lists should be referenced inline by entry. Of course, that isn't always the case, but at a minimum there should be a reference to verify that the list is correct and the entries in it belong there. This list, though, doesn't even have that bare minimum level of reference. Dugwiki 22:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC) reply

• Delete While I was persuaded by the reasons in the nomination, I was really convinced by Wooyi's comments. The fact that something cannot be verified or referenced is a very strong reason for deletion. Furthermore, just because there is an allegation that most "long lists" are unreferenced does not mean that this, or any of them, ought to be excused from the content policies and guidelines. In fact, I find that many lists nominated here at least have the saving grace of having references for the individual entries on the list. Agent 86 00:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC) reply

But not all list inherently need reference, like List of women writers, it is very easy to know if a writer is a woman. And for this one, it is harder to determine, but I believe most editors can say a film is cult classic by common sense. When I said there is no universal standard, I meant that this commensense may slightly vary, but still easy to determine. Wooyi 01:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC) reply

While it may be pretty easy to tell if someone is a woman (fairly objective criteria), I find it hard to believe that whether or not a film is "cult" is one of common sense (fairly subjective criteria). Agent 86 01:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC) reply

• Delete As cult could, and does, mean different things to different people, it might as well be a list of every film ever made... EnsRedShirt 12:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC) reply

• Delete per above due to the subjective nature of the label. Would prefer a limited number of verifiable cult films (by the way of repeated indisputable citation) on the Cult films article. — Erik ( talk • contrib • review) - 05:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete in its current form, unsourced. No prejudice against the creation of a list whose entries are cited to sources calling them "cult films" or "cult classics," however. Shimeru 08:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC) reply
• Reasoning would also apply to List of cult film actors and List of cult film directors Someone correctly pointed out that the same lines of reasoning in this afd also should apply to List of cult film actors and List of cult film directors. Unless someone beats me to it, I'll probably introduce afds for those two lists as well. Dugwiki 17:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete - fails WP:V by a mile, and is unlikely ever to pass it. Moreschi ^Deletion! 18:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC) reply
• Also nominated actors and directors lists FYI, I went ahead and put List of cult film actors and List of cult film directors up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cult film actors. Obviously all the same reasoning would apply to those. Feel free to put your feedback there as well. Dugwiki 18:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete per WP:V -- PhantomS 21:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete as unsourced, POV OR. Probably better to keep it short (as well as well-sourced) and in the main cult films article. But if it must be split out it should have very strict standards for sourcing and inclusion (see List of films considered the worst ever for such a list). Eluchil404 10:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC) reply

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.