Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of film accents considered the worst (2nd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. By and large, consensus is against keeping the article. I'm ignoring calls to redirect to draftspace (as the cross-namespace redirect would also be deleted), so obviously feel free to add an appropriate redirect once it's moved to the article namespace. slakr\ talk / 09:18, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of film accents considered the worst[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of film accents considered the worst (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There's no need for Wikipedia to curate this rubbish into a formatted table. Jamesx12345 18:04, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Hi Jamesx12345, do you have a more concrete rationale for this AfD nomination other than it being rubbish? I'm not a fan of the article either, but my opinion was not the prevailing one in the last AfD. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:24, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The topic of this article isn't a question that needed answering. Whereas List of films considered the best is an interesting question answered by a large number of respectable publications, this article relies mainly on a survey of "Scottish filmgoers", hence the bias towards Scottish accents. Whilst there are other sources out there as well, the topic is very "clickbaity", and would be best covered by Buzzfeed or some such site. Jamesx12345 21:13, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This seems aimed at content that clickbait sites would use - nothing inherently wrong with the content and might be fun to read, but far far from an encyclopedic purpose. Classifying performances by "worst accent" is not something regularly done, unlike, for example, categorizing films as worst ever, or worst overall performances by an actor. --MASEM (t) 18:28, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redefine as English-language accents in film with different sections on different accents. I encourage editors to read the previous AfD discussion here to consider the subjectivity of such labeling, which needs more context than just being a list item. (E.g., Sean Connery speaks in a Scottish accent in his roles, not even trying in non-Scottish roles.) I think a broader scope would allow us to cover the evolution of accents and to note the worst (as well as the best) examples, depending on the source. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 18:49, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is so unencyclopedic.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:37, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete This is just not suitable for incusion on Wikipedia. Its non-encyclopedic and overly trivial. Also, I fear that it may be n violation of WP:indiscriminate as there are no standards regarding inclusion and it could potentially be swamped by every actor or actress criticized for having a particularly bad accent. Also, as an unrelated sidenote one of the first sources I found while researching the term "accents considered the worst" was a Reddit thread joking about the existence of this article [1]. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:05, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to relevant section of Draft:English-language accents in film, contingent on the draft being moved to the mainspace. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 19:33, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just because an idea is covered in reliable sources and may even be notable doesn't mean it should have an article. The point about this list is that is it is indiscriminate information since it is grouping several different possible sources to highlight the worst accents in films, a mish-mash of information that is strictly an opinion. It really is not encyclopedic. --MASEM (t) 13:00, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well... not indiscriminate, as inclusion is set by the defining term "film accents considered the worst", and not our opinions but those of reliable sources offering their own judgement and expertise. All we need do is list and properly cite. We have articles on some of the silliest or most imaginary things, all based upon the fact that reliable sources outside these unreliable pages have decided the topic is worthy of discussion. Seems to be exactly the description set by WP:N. We do not set ourselves as arbiters of what reliable sources choose to cover, or do we truly have that much chutzpah here now? As for "encyclopedic", neutral presentation of information is a matter for editing, as the words of WP:NOTPAPER tell us that even totally bogus topics are allowed as long as the information is well and properly sourced. For instance, even if totally imaginary, coverage of the idea of the Tooth Fairy makes the topic verifiable, and it has a well-sourced "encyclopedic" article. Schmidt, Michael Q. 14:53, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I fully agree with MichaelQSchmidt. The delete !votes here are a species of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and, to a considerable extent, this article has also been impacted by editing practices that rise out of the same dislike of the topic. But Wikipedia can and should exist for different audiences. This subject is discussed in scholarly works as well as the popular media and it should have a place here as well. --Arxiloxos (talk) 14:44, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • What scholarly sources? All at the present time are newspapers and magazines. --MASEM (t) 14:47, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have not gone through them all, but a search for "bad film accents" shows the topic is discussed in a scholarly manner. Their not being used does not make them imaginary. Schmidt, Michael Q. 14:56, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see discussions of film accents - for better or worse - as part of film studies articles but no outright identification of specific "bad" accents. Now, if the article was more addressing concepts like accents used to stereotype characters and noting some bad instances of them (eg [2] would be a source for that), then maybe there's something. But I see nothing in the scholarly aspect to point out specific examples of the worst accents in films. --MASEM (t) 15:02, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • As discussed in the first AfD: Second Dialect Acquisition (Cambridge University Press, 2010) discusses bad acting accents and mentions some of the websites that collect them (as well as a brief mention of a Wikipedia article!) [3] --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:07, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Granted, there's examples there, but I still take it that a better article could be written about film accents used to portray stereotypes (for better or worse) and then include some examples as part of it; that would be much more natural inclusion of the list than this as standalone. --MASEM (t) 15:10, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I voted delete in part due to the issue with wp:indiscriminate. Yes, I'm aware that media sources exist, but if this article is kept then it will just become a list of every time a media source disliked the accent of a particular actor or actress. Furthermore, articles such as "worst hair styles in film", "worst costume in film", and "worst performance in film" could all be given articles since a multitude of reliable sources exist for these as well. These articles are little more than an indiscriminate collection of celebrity gossip, and should not exist. (In addition, this article will likely run into problems with WP:SYN if expanded). Spirit of Eagle (talk) 15:14, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As long as editors refrain from writing anything not covered in sources, the WP:SYNTH is not ours. And with respects, WP:SUSCEPTIBLE is a bit of a straw man, as Wikipedia has remedies in place to tackle its policy violation issues, should they occur. Schmidt, Michael Q. 15:19, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To reiterate from my comment in the previous AfD discussion, "...the point has been raised that the sources that list such accents are not good enough. WP:NEWSORG states, 'When taking information from opinion content (added bold), the identity of the author may help determine reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint.' In terms of making a 'best' or 'worst' judgment, we need better than what we have here. I've noticed that there is inconsistency in listing some films. For example, Sean Connery and the use of his Scottish accent has been judged in different ways. This kind of thing to me suggests that we need to be appropriately neutral per WP:NPOV and engage in explanation and attribution, which ultimately defeats the purpose of this list." Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 17:47, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE The inclusion of all of these list items is subjective, based on the opinions of non-notable magazine writers. Secondly, this list is not notable: WP:Notability means impact. Thirdly, the criteria for inclusion are too vague, even arbitrary. "Considered the worst by a consensus of film critics or audiences"? What percentage constitutes a consensus? Who are these film critics and audiences? I guess a fourth point: although it is published in BBC, the source is this poll, which is an unreliable poll. --Gccwang (talk) 20:37, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the link to Blargh29's brief essay. As the topic of accents in films HAS received recognition, discussion, and commentary outside of Wikipedia in magazines, newspapers, books, and scholarly studies over a many-years period, we might consider that when reliable sources (ie: sources with editorial oversight and reputations for fact-checking and accuracy) decided to allow their staff to write such articles for wide publication, it has the "WP:IMPACT" Blargh29 writes about. Information best presented as prose and attributed to its source and, rather than a list, in a article on the topic of movie accents (both good and bad)... for interested Wikipedia readers... and not disinterested Wikipedia editors. Erik made some good points about how to redefine this sourcable topic so it might be best presented. Schmidt, Michael Q. 21:58, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I really think that we must consider additional criteria other than whether it was published and who published it. A news agency can publish soft pieces that are for amusement purposes only -- a cat stuck in a tree, the winners of the father-daughter dance-off, a local 86 year old housewife making jam. These stories were published/aired not because the subject matter has impact (will be remembered or have an effect on many people for years) but because newspapers are also in the business of entertainment. We assume too much in saying that the editorial staff found it to be an important subject simply because it was published. They may have found it to be an entertaining subject, for a brief amusement. --Gccwang (talk) 05:04, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, really??? Pardon, but WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a criteria... it's a censorship. Topic notability within Wikipedia is based entirely upon if the information offered our readers was published and where and by whom. You may not like the topic, but Wikipedia exists for the readers, not the editors. Did you actually read any of the multiple offered sources? Please go study WP:NRVE. Variety writes about its industry, not about cats-in-trees. Los Angeles Times is not about old ladies making jam. New York Times is not about winners of a local father-daughter dance-off. Time Magazine is not writing about cats in trees. BBC News is not writing about ladies making making jam. Daily Mail is not about winners of a local dance-off. BBC News survey shows the topic as having wide interest. That the topic of film accents has been discussed in so many sources over so many years shows WP:IMPACT and pokes holes in your incorrect theory that interest in the topic is a "brief" blip. Using imaginary comparisons rather than discussing the actual sources and what they offer our readers is decidedly unhelpful. Better here to discuss how this widely covered topic can be presented per policy and guideline, not deleted per a WP:PPOV. Schmidt, Michael Q. 10:00, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Every newspaper you mentioned: LA Times, NY Times, Daily Mail, as well as Time and BBC, as general news sources, will publish human interest stories, whether on a local scale (for the newspapers) or otherwise, either to fill space or just offset a lot of bad news. This is SOP at nearly all such sources. This does not invalid them as sources, but we have to be aware of the difference between legit news and opinion, and something that's there to fill space, and lists like these exist mostly for the latter. Variety is the only exception here as it is an industry magazine for Hollywood, so it has a more specific purpose. --MASEM (t) 14:46, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Time then to report LA Times, NY Times, Daily Mail, as well as Time and BBC, to WP:RSN for being sources that "must" be seen as failing WP:RS because of an "SOP" to publish "general news"... or because they made an editorial decision to cover the topic of film accents for several decades. Imagine Wikipedia having several hundred thousand articles sent to AFD for relying on such "poor" sources. Wow. Personally, I find it quite difficult to ignore existing policy and guideline, and no doubt a closer will base a decision upon an even application of guideline and policy based arguments. Of course, admins at WP:DRV generally make it a point to do just that. And I am awaiting a response to Erik's suggestion toward a re-naming and a re-focus, creating an article rather than a list. Schmidt, Michael Q. 16:52, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did not say they are no longer reliable, but just that we have to be aware they will publish filler stories alongside real ones, and so we have to evaluate such stories case by case. The arguments here is that the most of the sourcing here is presently such filler. They are still valid sources to meet WP:V if part of a larger targe, but we don't base article inclusion solely on such stories. --MASEM (t) 20:17, 11 September 2014 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_film_accents_considered_the_worst_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1138011468"