Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cult classic (second nomination)

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 as WP:NOR and lacking any verifiable sources, then redirect to Cult film. The article is inaccurate, as pointed out by Tony Sideaway, and it duplicates parts of Cult film and Cult following. The first AfD go-round elicited pledges to clean it up and improve it, but it didn't happen. - KrakatoaKatie 06:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cult classic

Cult classic (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

A long list was recently removed from this article and used to create a separate article, List of cult classics, which is now listed for deletion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cult classics). But I'm concerned about this article. The article seems to be the opinion of just one or two people, seems to have been written from a particular national perspective, and has been marked as unsourced since last listed for deletion in May, 2007. The article seems to have been written in such a vague way that it would be possible to replace the term "cult classic" with "popular film, book, play or novel" throughout.

It's poorly researched. For instance, Dumb and Dumber was far from the start of Jim Carrey's career; he had enjoyed considerable mainstream success in Ace Ventura: Pet Detective and The Mask. And his co-star Jeff Daniels was by then a Hollywood veteran, enjoying critical acclaim in Woody Allen movies such as The Purple Rose of Cairo, and box office success in Arachnophobia. It seems that this article has consistently failed to attract knowledgeable writers who can do justice to the subject matter, and we'd probably be better off without an article here. --Tony Sidaway 18:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete, irretrievably OR. Corvus cornix 18:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak delete; I fully support the nominator's concerns, although it seems harsh to delete something that could be cleaned up. OTOH, OR would probably always be an issue with this article ('cult classic' gets bandied around an awful lot, and is rather a difficult term to pin down)... and once the OR is removed we'd be left with little more than a dictionary definition. EyeSereneTALK 19:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and tag for cleanup Considering that there are entire books about "cult classics" ([1], [2], [3]), it's hard to say that this topic is "irretrievably OR." With enough incentive, this could be made into a featured article, like B movie. Zagalejo 19:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
    That was tried in May, at the end of the last AfD. The term B movie is well defined: a movie made on a low budget, originally intended to be viewed as a second feature in a double bill. It seems that the problem with this subject is that it is very vaguely defined. --Tony Sidaway 19:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
  • What was tried, and where? I'm not sure what you're trying to prove with that link. Zagalejo 19:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
    • The link points to the first AfD, four months ago, where this was stubbified and nobody has made it any better since then. Corvus cornix 20:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Zagalejo's comments; I may be a film nerd, but I can't believe this is on AfD.... I'll look for refs when I get back to my uni's libraray (we have a great film section) Zidel333 19:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
    • What's so hard about an article with entirely subjective criteria with absolutely no reliable sources, being deleted? Corvus cornix 20:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC), film nerd
  • Keep Content disputes should be cleared up on RfC on its talk page, not on AfD. Topic is certainly notable. Wl219 19:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Again, this isn't irretrievably OR. Definitions of the term do seem to exist. Zagalejo 20:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Zagalejo, W1219 et al. I can fix it when I am back from vacation/wikibreak. Bearian 20:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment the term itself is reasonably well-used, and as such, it is reasonable to cover it to some extent. I suggested redirecting this to cult fiction but that's been merged into Cult following instead. Which itself needs references. Sigh. This isn't a deletion problem. It's a making of decent articles one. FrozenPurpleCube 20:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete I am sorry that I have to agree on this one, but there's no excuse for an unsourced article about cult classics. So many books have been written about the subject that original research is unnecessary. The only decent part of the article is the popular joke. Mandsford 22:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
  • So many books have been written about the subject that original research is unnecessary. No argument there! Which means that deletion is not the answer; clean-up is. If a topic is deemed notable, we don't usually delete it unless there there are problems with libel or copyright infringement. Unfortunately, I do not own any of the relevant books on this subject, so there's not much I can do myself. A couple editors have expressed interest in adding refs, so let's see what they come up with. Zagalejo 22:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. The topic of this article overlaps with that of Cult following, and I don't see anything here that isn't, or couldn't be, treated in that article or in Cult film. Moreover, I don't think a viable description of a cult classic that would distinguish one from any other cult film or TV show or whatever is possible (as is shown by List of cult classics, which is very much a mixed bag). WP:OR seems a valid argument against this particular classification of cult phenomena. Deor 00:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I had initially thought that cult following was just about the fans themselves, but the scope of that article appears to be much broader. So, OK, I'll concede that we don't really need a separate article for "cult classic". I'm still opposed to outright deletion, though, since "cult classic" is obviously viable as a search term and can be turned into a redirect. Zagalejo 01:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete; First, it's original research. Second, it mostly duplicates Cult film and parts of Cult following. How many different articles do we need on the same topic? Masaruemoto 04:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Most of this deals with film, a topic much better handled in Cult film. It is not terribly well written and I'm not sure anything in it is merge-worthy. Either redirect to Cult following or create a dismabig page linking to Cult film and the other relevant pages. Sci girl 04:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm pretty sure turning this into a redirect to cult film wouldn't do any harm. Ichormosquito 05:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup. Merge and redirect with Cult film. My following statement still stands, but most of the good encyclopedic content is already covered there. Are you shitting me? The term 'cult classic" is absolutely one of the top five most essential terms used in film studies and criticism. Get rid of the listcruft, and keep/expand a prose discussion of the history and use of the term. VanTucky (talk) 23:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Cult film per above. Fireplace 03:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete/Redirect This article, in its current state is completely original research and I see nothing to get it past WP:NEO Corpx 03:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Just because someone thinks it's poorly researched and doesn't like the list the whole lot should be removed? Poorly researched? Why don't we start going around all the other poorly researched pages aswell then and start deleting them! Can't we please just have a group of people try and make a better and more informative list please? I'm sure it could be a lot of help to people in the future. If not, can we try and make a list of genuine cult films elsewhere please? TeNova 12:22, 24 August, 2007 (GMT)
  • Keep It really just needs some citations added and general clean-up to make it into a strong keep.Salvatore22 22:22, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep the Cult Classics page! It really doesn't fall into other catagories as well as some people should like. Besides that, the reasons that other people list are completely bogus. People have already volunteered to clean it up as soon as possible, so at least give them a chance to before tearing it down!!! As it was already mentioned, Wikipedia would be half gone if all the articles that are 'poorly researched' were deleted, then we would be left with hardly any articles! Keep the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.3.178.181 (talk) 16:27, August 26, 2007 (UTC) — 71.3.178.181 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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.