Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Themes and analysis of No Country for Old Men (film)

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. Simply no consensus to delete, although the article does appear to need significant work to condense and focus the content. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:33, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Themes and analysis of No Country for Old Men (film)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Questionable notability for a standalone article, poss. WP:COPYVIO problems, definite WP:QUOTEFARM Additional information- EVERY SINGLE paragraph in the body starts with something along the lines of "So and so said" and then launches into an extremely long quote, and there is virtually no nonquoted text in the article's body. It is excessive to the point of being a severe copyright violation issue. So even if the consensus ends up that in principle the topic is notable, the article as written right now has to be taken down, because its not a matter of trimming a little here and there, it is a matter of massive cuts, and then writing a significant amount of new text to make it an article with quotes instead of just a string of quotes which is all it is right now. For policy guidance seeWP:QUOTEFARM, which gives examples of overuse of quotations such as:

"Using too many quotes is incompatible with the encyclopedic writing style."
"Wikipedia is not a list or repository of loosely associated topics such as quotations."
"Intersperse quotations with original prose that comments on those quotations instead of constructing articles out of quotations with little or no original prose."

Wikipedia policy specifically states

"The copied material should not comprise a substantial portion of the work being quoted, and a longer quotation should not be used where a shorter quotation would express the same information. What constitutes a substantial portion depends on many factors, such as the length of the original work and how central the quoted text is to that work."Mmyers1976 (talk) 02:35, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SUMMARY: "Wikipedia articles cover topics at several levels of detail: the lead contains a quick summary of the topic's most important points, and each major subtopic is detailed in its own section of the article.... A fuller treatment of any major subtopic should go in a separate article of its own." I saw your comment at Talk:Themes and analysis of No Country for Old Men (film) and have to disagree with your assessment. We cannot compare Wikipedia to "normal" encyclopedias. Per WP:5P, "It combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers." The only limitation to apply is WP:INDISCRIMINATE, but I think that this topic is a viable one, considering how scrutinized this film has been. You could make a case to shorten some of this article's sections and address excessive quoting, but that does not mean we should erase this topic from the encyclopedia. This sort of subtopic is uncommon but does exist; see items at Category:Themes in works of fiction. I believe that we should encourage this kind of subtopic because it is a closer look at a film. A well-analyzed film could not fit all of the coverage on the main article, so splitting it off as a stand-alone article can suffice. Readers at the main article don't have to be overwhelmed, and those who are interested in going in depth about the subtopic can make the trip to the secondary article. Erik (talk | contribs) 01:57, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep None of the reasons cited by the proposing editor are reasons for deletion, they are good reasons for the article to be edited and improved where necessary. This same editor has made a merge proposal, as well, suggesting this article be merged into the main film article, so I wonder what his real goal is here. He seems to simply dislike this article and wants to be rid of it, by one means or another. Erik gives very good reasons above for why this article should not be deleted and I agree with him. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 03:25, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems a pointy nomination after this ass handing. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:01, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:19, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:19, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Response to failure to Assume Good Faith Since The Old Jacobite and Lugnuts have chosen not to adhere to Assume Good Faith, I will respond to their allegations. First, for Lugnuts to attempt to characterize a minor misunderstanding between Garth Griffith-Jones and myself that ended quickly with no hard feelings between either of us as an "ass-handing" is entirely inaccurate, the language he used was inappropriate, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with the issues with the article. If TheOldJacobite really believes that copyright violations are not grounds for deletion when the article is nothing but copyrighted material, then he would do well to better acquaint himself with Wikipedia's policy on copyright violations, which states "If a page contains material which infringes copyright, that material – and the whole page, if there is no other material present – should be removed. See Wikipedia:Copyright violations for more information, and Wikipedia:Copyright problems for detailed instructions." as well as Wikipedia's policy on unambiguous copyright violation being grounds for Speedy Deletion. However I chose to cut the article some slack and not nominate it for that. My reasons for withdrawing the Merger Proposal are very clearly stated on the article's talk page, they were a better understanding of the reasons people did not want the material in the film's main article in the first place, and TheOldJacobite should know this, as he was in that discussion. He should also know that I praised this article and the work that went into it, so his claims that I "simply dislike" it are entirely without merit. IF there are any agendas at work here, the previous discussions (which I was not a part of) on the main film article's talk page indicate that they are that some people have a strong sense of Page Ownership of this Themes and analysis text. While I feel for them because obviously a lot of work went into it, that doesn't exempt it for Wikipedia's policies on copyrighted material, or copyright law. Mmyers1976 (talk) 12:54, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Response of the Response to failure to Assume Good Faith. Read WP:BEFORE. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 15:07, 8 November 2013 (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.