Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bravo's 100 Funniest Movies

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 of the debate was delete. Kimchi.sg 16:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bravo's 100 Funniest Movies[edit]

Delete. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collector of information. Furthermore, articles should not consist of "[m]ere collections of internal links." — Mike • 03:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - See also Category:Bravo's 100 Funniest Movies. -- Jonel | Speak 03:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, with no prejudice towards recreation if the recreation actually describes what it is, rather than just the list. The category should not be deleted. Also, most list articles are collections of internal links, and WP:NOT doesn't disallow that, it disallows collections of external links. --Rory096 05:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as it stands, the article is an indiscriminate collection of information. There's no description of exactly what it is. --Coredesat 05:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no major problem with the cat, but the list contravenes WP:NOT. Deizio talk 13:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clarify - contains zero context. If it had year, director, country etc. I'd love to see it kept. Deizio talk 02:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete --->|Newyorktimescrossword 21:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)|[reply]
Keep I see no reason to delete it, and we have other similar pages elsewhere. --Bachrach44 21:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- There's just no actual content. It's better off restarted. --Rory096 20:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Bravo (television network) and link to the list from there, then delete. We don't want to be violating copyright on someone else's list (see the history of the Blender (magazine) article). This should not be counted as a keep. -- nae'blis _(talk) 22:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable listcruft. --Musicpvm 05:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Copying an editorial ranking produced by a commercial entity is uncomfortably close to copyright infringement. Can it be demonstrated that this is fair use of the information? — RJH (talk) 16:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- And would the ranking be worth the fair use claim considering that we have the (unranked) fully-populated category? -- Jonel | Speak 22:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Trivial and probably a copyvio. Calsicol 22:28, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - uh... Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_June_21#Category:Bravo.27s_100_Funniest_Movies; "listify" has actually been suggested there... -- Jonel | Speak 02:15, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This is pretty funny. The feeling at CFD seems to be that only the most important groupings ought to be Categories. Just imaging if every movie ranking were a Category, how many Categories would be at the bottom of articles about famous movies. So in general, if you guys don't think something should be a list, don't suggest that it be a Category, because at CFD they're suggesting just the opposite. --JeffW 03:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A "[m]ere collections of internal links" is a pretty good description of most "List of" articles. --JeffW 03:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, If I understand your vote correctly you're in violation of WP:POINT. You clearly know the policy, know this list contravenes it but are voting to keep. Yes, there are many bare lists on WP, and yes, they are all anti-policy. Doesn't mean you get to keep the ones you like just because so many others haven't been brought to the dancefloor yet. Deizio talk 11:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've read the policy and I don't think it was meant to apply to a list like this. Is the problem that there is nothing but the links? I believe that if you read the top of the AfD page it says something like you shouldn't propose an article for deletion if it can be made into a valid article with a little work. --JeffW 15:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've commented on Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not why I believe the internal links clause is outdated and should be deleted. --JeffW 16:20, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Are pure "lists" on the delete list? To those who say delete, its funny because I ony saw part of the special a few months back and my FIRST reaction was to go to WP and see what the entire list was and compare it to the AFI list (which is also on WP). Schnu 13:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --subjective, pointless and stupid don't even begin to describe it's inclusion. --Bobak 23:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pointless. Fr e ddie _Message? 23:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (list and category), but not merely on the principal of "Not a collection of links" -- rather, the fact that this is based on work of a particular for-profit enterprise, makes it copyrighted, and thus presentation of "such a "Bravo's list" would be a copyvio -- since there's no Fair Use argument for its inclusion on Wikipedia. Furthermore, as numerous critics of this list point out, there's no clear criteria for its organisation, making it further, non-notable. (See discussions at: RottenTomatoes.com, TelevisionWithoutPity.com) In contrast, however, I'd suggest that the American Film Institute's top 100 comedies of the last 100 years would be notable, and appropriate for an article/list; it is newsworthy and based on a nomination/voting system: "AFI distributed a ballot with 500 nominated films to a jury of 1800 leaders from the film community, including film artists (directors, screenwriters, actors, editors, cinematographers, etc.), critics, historians and film executives."--Leflyman^Talk 23:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if this is considered notable, notes can be made on the relevant movie pages. Category handles this much better, IMHO, since there is very little addition information in the list. I.e. no context, thematic categorization, descriptions, or entries that don't have their articles. Eluchil404 05:42, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not Encyclopedic Canderra 17:12, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--Greasysteve13 04:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We've got the Rolling Stone list of greatest guitarists of all time and numerous other lists. Plus, we can always add other information to it to better the article. Nothing a little editing can't fix :). Эйрон Кинни (t) 08:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rolling Stone's List of the 100 Greatest Guitarists of All Time doesn't actually contain the list itself, hence isn't actually a list in the WP:LIST sense, and therefore isn't ideal for comparison in this case. Deizio talk 01:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable. --TonyM ^{ｷﾀ━( °∀° )━ｯ!!} 17:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even if this list is referred to in an article, its very mention would be insignificant enough to merit reversion. Not as indescriminate as others that I have seen but still non-notable and not worthy of inclusion. -- Alias Flood 02:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I found this page interesting and a good reference for similar movies. It may be a "mere collection of links" but it is a useful collection of links. --203.1.248.11 04:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- There's no such policy as Wikipedia:Interestingness. Merely finding an article interesting isn't sufficient reason under Wikipedia policy to keep it around. — Mike • 11:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's also no such policy as AfD voting rights for anons. Deizio talk 12:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there is no "voting rights" for anyone, as AfD isn't a vote-- however it's up to the closing admin whether to heed comments presented by anonymous users. As noted in the Guide to Deletions, "Anyone acting in good faith can contribute to the discussion... As discussed above, relevant facts and evidence are welcome from anyone but the opinions of anonymous and/or suspiciously new users may be discounted by the closing admin. Please bear in mind that administrators will discount any obviously bad faith contributions to the discussion when closing the discussion. On the other hand, a user who makes a well-argued, fact-based case based upon Wikipedia policy and does so in a civil manner may well sway the discussion despite being anonymous."--Leflyman^Talk 15:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; no real need for such a page. Seems like a waste of space at best, as interesting as it is. (besides, Animal House is overrated). The Son Of Nothing 15:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as it is only a small step down from 100 Greatest Britons; its deletion proposal looked very different. --BDD 23:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC) (That said, it definitely needs some work. Background on how the list was compiled, at a bare minimum, is necessary. Perhaps my keep should be altered to be weak or qualified.) --BDD 23:43, 27 June 2006 (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.