Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of films featuring United States Marines

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. Bucketsofg 20:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of films featuring United States Marines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 22:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 22:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military and combat-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 22:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a repository of loosely-associated topics. That a Marine or Marines appear in a film is not sufficient to justify this article. Otto4711 03:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Sure, an article that merely has films because they have marines in it (no matter the role) would be a problem, however, this article does not have to be that article. It should be limited to those whose primary subject is related to the Marines. IOW, the American Presient which merely features marines wouldn't qualify, but something like Jarhead would. This is really no different than listing war movies by the war they depict. It might also work better as a category. Or see List of World War II films for an example of how this list should look. FrozenPurpleCube 04:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Mister M makes a good point. Nomination not convincing. --Kevin Murray 05:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I see "Wikipedia is not a repository of loosely-associated topics" is the new "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". Nominator's mass separate listing is only slightly preferable to a mass nomination, and I really, really wish he would attempt to establish some policy consensus or clarity on the WP:NOT talk page rather than showering us with dozens of AfDs to test what seems to me like a rather dubious interpretation of policy. --Canley 06:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I have offered up a policy suggestion on that talk page. Perhaps you missed the thing that has my name all over it. Otto4711 06:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I have read that, you offered a suggestion for text forbidding pop culture references, that's great. You do not, however, seem to have mentioned your latest argument about "loosely-associated topics". --Canley 14:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Agree with FrozenPurpleCube. "Films featuring the Marines" is a pretty-well defined topic, it is not "loosely-associated." Crypticfirefly 06:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• What is the connection between Aliens, A Few Good Men and U.S. Marshals that warrants lumping them together under a list of "films featuring United States Marines"? Aliens features no US Marines, US Marshals article makes no mention of the U.S. Marines. Where's the commonality? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Otto4711 (talk • contribs) 06:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

• Feel free to remove Aliens and US Marshals from the page. I'd say AFGM was more about the JAG, but there's something substantial in its connection to the USMC. FrozenPurpleCube 11:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well defined topic and not a pointless list as the nominator would like to portray.--Looper5920 06:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Why have list with no data apart from names? Could be categorised if required. A list is meant to have some sort meaningful entry data, not just a list of names, otherwise it is merely a category listing. make category films featuing US marines and dump this.--Dacium 06:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I concur, adding data would be highly useful. Date, war(s) featured, and any other information would be quite viable. Go for it. FrozenPurpleCube 07:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep discriminate list with clear definition and articles in scope with definition. Seems to be part of a spree by the same nominator. -- User:Docu

• Oh yes, by all means fail to assume good faith and make this about me instead of the merits of the article. Otto4711 07:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it unrelated to the others? -- User:Docu

• Any article must stand or fall on its own, regardless of whatever other articles may or may not exist. Otto4711 07:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm also concerned when I see so many nominations at once. For various reasons, it troubles me. Perhaps you mean well, but I do think you might wish to consider a bit more discretion, just so you don't raise people's warning flags. FrozenPurpleCube 11:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree that ad hominem arguments are inappropriate, but that comment was not the gist of Docu's argument. Rather, it was an afternote to his main argument. It does, however, raise some concern that you nominated this for AfD two minutes after the "twist ending" article. That is hardly enough time to consider the merits of an article. Granted, maybe you looked them all over beforehand and then proceeded to nominate them for deletion. However, if the same criticism(s) are going to be applied to all of the articles, then a bundled nomination (or at least, a few bundled nominations of a couple articles each) would have been appropriate. -- Black Falcon 22:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• As I noted in other AFDs, a mass nomination of 20-some articles would create chaos and would result in no consensus being reached and the nomination being closed with an instruction to renominate individually. Even smaller groupings are likely to be shut down, as recent grouped nominations of Amazing Race contestants and Millionaire contestants were shut down for being too unrelated to each other. And frankly it's not like any of these articles are so in-depth that they require vast amounts of time to consider. This article is a list of about 40 names. How long does it take to read that and come to a conclusion about it? Otto4711 00:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• It doesn't take long to read and judge this list as being of high/low quality (seconds at most), but it does take more time to consider whether the topic itself has merit or if the article can potentially be refocused/improved. Perhaps you consider such lists/articles (no matter how they're written) to be inherently unencyclopedic (even if its, for example, "films about the USMC"). If that is the case, then I understand your fast-paced nominations, but I disagree strongly with that notion. It is not indiscriminate to group films by their primary subject of focus or the use of an object or characteristic as a major plot theme. -- Black Falcon 01:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• And while I do respect that a single mass nomination would have been even worse, so many nominations at once is still a concern to me. Either way it's a potential flood that might be better space out over a few days, perhaps nominating a few, seeing the response, and reacting accordingly. FrozenPurpleCube 01:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I am a very concerned WP Films member, especially on film lists issues. I am not a "deletionist" as such. However, Otto4711's move is having a very positive effect. Our lists have to be developed into useful articles, or should give their place to some category. The current AfD has brought out this issue and already solutions are being worked out. Please note that the List of years in film, which was innitially just a navigation to a series of lists, had grown into an indiscriminate POV collection of films. So at one point it was nominated for AfD. During the AfD discussion, an editor was motivated to start developing it into something very useful. It's still under development, so please notice how it evolved (up to the 1930s) and how it looked berofe (1940s on). Hoverfish Talk 14:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rewrite as a list of movies about the United States Marine Corps (the organisation itself, or major characters with major roles) per Mister Manticore, with context about the film and appropriate events portrayed. Failing that, delete and categorise at Category:Films featuring the US Marine Corps or similar title, with emphasis on movies that feature the USMC, and not movies with a minor marine character or featuring an organisation that 'looks like' the USMC. -- saberwyn 10:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I support Saberwyn's idea wholeheartedly. Arkyan 18:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but possibly rewrite per Mister Manticore. This isn't an unreasonable list and it has a specific criteria. 23skidoo 13:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• If it gets rewritten as discussed so that it is films which are mostly or exclusively about USM, keep. If it does not, delete. Do not keep because it could be rewritten and moved to another title, because that rarely actually happens, and it is basically writing an entirely new article anyway. GassyGuy 19:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename, rewrite and keep per Saberwyn. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, rename, and rewrite per Saberwyn. -- Black Falcon 22:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, rename, and rewrite per Saberwyn. -- Stbalbach 04:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename, rewrite and keep per Saberwyn. Hoverfish Talk 09:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At this point in the discussion, I took it upon myself to rewrite the article, which can be found at User:Saberwyn/Films featuring the United States Marine Corps. The top half of the article is a table displaying title and director, summary, date of release, and awards (a field which in hindsight should really be replaced with something else). The bottom half is an annotated version of the current article, saying why a particluar movie is or isn't included in the table (there are borderline cases in this section). Please comment and reconsider based on this rewrite. -- saberwyn 11:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Please note that this rewrite article is a fisrt draft, the formatting and some content is subject to change. I can't believe I just did this... -- saberwyn 12:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find the draft quite acceptable. I would recommend it as an example for several other film lists in need of cleanup/inclusion-explanations under the current AfD nomination. Details: not so many awards where applicable - give 1-2 main ones by name and the rest by number. Suggestion: border=0 formatting, if possible. Hoverfish Talk 14:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Post this article Much improved! I agree with the deletions except The Great Santini, which is a great film about a military family and a hard-boiled marine flyer. --Kevin Murray 16:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed! This version is much better in terms of content, compliance with WP:LIST, and presentation. I would suggest renaming the "Awards" section to "Notes" to include a wide range of information on the movie such as awards received, financial success, breakthrough performance of an actor/actress, and so on. Many thanks for your improvements, Black Falcon 18:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Excellent I like the improvements to the page, and I believe this is the concept that should be used in improving this page. I don't know that it should be explicitly limited to films (though another page could cover other media appearances), and I might modify the criteria to include former marine characters if they're still central to the plot. Maybe adding exclusion criteria too, so folks no that a movie that just has some marines in it would not qualify. FrozenPurpleCube 18:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which movies would you add in, and what disqualification criteria would you add? -- saberwyn 23:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • One thing: I noticed that you decided not to include movies that don't have a corresponding Wiki article. However, I would leave those in IF you know that they would otherwise qualify. Crypticfirefly 03:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC) By the way, I've added the movie "Tribes" to the Tribes disambig page-- it looks like it would qualify per information found on Amazon.com. Crypticfirefly 03:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC) You should also leave in "Shores of Tripoli" the wiki article is under its full title To the Shores of Tripoli. According to IMDB it is about the Marines. Also notable as Maureen O'Hara's first Technicolor film. Crypticfirefly 03:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC) Oh, also leave in The Great Santini. Crypticfirefly 03:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Further query: would you folks consider it appropriate to include something like the 1937 Busby Berkeley musical The Singing Marine? Crypticfirefly 05:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reason movies without Wiki articles were not included as without the article, I cannot confirm or deny the presence and impact of Marines in the plot. -- saberwyn 11:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep especially after the re-write, it doesn't meet the reason given to delete it in the first place. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 18:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per WP:LIST: information and navigation. Featuring US Marines is sufficient commonality. - Peregrine Fisher 02:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per others.--JayHenry 22:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Post the rewrite and keep. The new way is much better. Crypticfirefly 03:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• REWRITE NOW IN MAINSPACE. Please move to List of films featuring the United States Marine Corps following the conclusion of this discussion, if kept. -- saberwyn 11:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the rewrite. GassyGuy 23:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support the rewrite. I'm still not keen on the title but the article is cleaner and the rewrite is good. Arkyan 20:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep given the rewrite. I wouldn't have thought it was possible to treat the subject well enough for an article, but I was wrong. Also support renaming to help clarify scope. Eluchil404 09:52, 1 March 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.