This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2024 April 6.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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. The chief argument for the Delete views here is the vague definition of what constitutes a "cult film", therefore failing to meet NLIST. Countering that, the Keep views pointed out that the list isn't of cult films, but of films described by reliable sources as "cult", which is well-defined criterion, similar to that of List of films considered the worst. This argument was not successfully rebutted by the Delete views. Whether the article needs to be renamed to reflect this distinction can be discussed on the article's Talk page. Owen× ☎ 23:32, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of cult films

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Poorly devined, vague, subjective definiting. There is a huge number of films with huge popularity and large fanbase. The previous nom was noted for del unanimously and arguments remain the same. - Altenmann >talk 14:02, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Lists. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:50, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete You may have to tag all the individual articles. "Cult" is a very broad and somewhat vague term. All it means is that there are some people who really like it! That it retained popularity among some people after its release, or that it may not have a particularly broad fan base. But this is not an intrinsic or distinguishing characteristic. When the inclusion criteria here is that one person used a certain term once to describe a movie, that isn't necessarily a relevant commonality or a useful description. This is simply too broad of a concept to justify us maintaining such a large context-free list. Cult film could use some subsections for readability, but that's the place to go for significant examples and appropriate context of what makes them cult films. Navigating though two dozen pages with dozens of entries, most of whose own articles don't even mention what makes them cult films, is simply indiscriminate and not useful to readers. Reywas92^Talk 21:55, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The other 27 articles linked to should be included in this. Anyway, as I said in the last two AFDs for this, if the reliable sources refer to it as a cult film, that's what we go by, not personal opinions. Every entry has a reference. Dream Focus 22:29, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If the page has resisted THREE Afds it may be that there's no need for a 4th, I would have thought. Can we reformat the title of this page so that this is made clear: it's not the second nomination, it's the 4th! WP:NLIST mentions that lists are notable if their subject has received coverage as a set. It has. One click is enough imv to attest of the notability of this list:

And so on.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:48, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those are all listicles, and do little to establish notability. In any case, none of these pass the smell test for reliability, which I'll expand on more below. Hell, the Rolling Stone one isn't even about movies, but media in general. They include Andy Kaufman for crissakes. You are also mistaken; it only survived two of those AFDs...it was deleted the first time around. None of which particularly matters per WP:LASTTIME. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 05:29, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then click on the Google Books link above. You will find various books covering cult films as a set. The term is not subjective and can be well-defined (etc, etc, etc, etc). Thank you. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:25, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think these sources would be great for Cult film, but they don't justify 27 pages with 2,334 films listed without context. We should absolutely have a good discussion of key examples of films with the strongest cult followings, but a list of any film for which this descriptor has been used in passing just becomes indiscriminate with little utility. Even if people have provided a definition for the term, that doesn't mean it's used consistently or establishes it as a particular genre. That writer defined it, but Cult film is clear there are inclusive and exclusive definitions and that there is "difficulty in defining the term and subjectivity of what qualifies"! I think the article's descriptor "Overly broad usage of the term has resulted in controversy, as purists state it has become a meaningless descriptor applied to any film that is the slightest bit weird or unconventional; others accuse Hollywood studios of trying to artificially create cult films or use the term as a marketing tactic. Modern films are frequently stated to be an "instant cult classic", occasionally before they are released" shows how pointless this huge set of lists has become. Going though Template:Films by genre many of thes lists are quite large, but specific genres are clearer-cut and based on the films themselves rather than the various ways in which they could be received. Reywas92^Talk 23:28, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as this is a vague, subjective descriptor term that's applied loosely, without any widely agreed-upon definition. That one random author happens to call something a cult classic is meaningless. There are no reliable sources for determining what qualifies as a cult film, because there are no criteria by which anyone can judge it objectively, and it's not as if there's any scholarly debate about what merits inclusion and what doesn't. The "sources" listed above are all fluff pieces of little value. This is bottom-of-the-barrel stuff, even by Wikipedia standards. Nuke it from orbit; it's the only way to be sure. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 05:29, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- what is the topic of this list? Is it "list of cult films" as the title implies? Because if so, WP:LISTCRIT states "Selection criteria (also known as inclusion criteria or membership criteria) should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources." And I think it's pretty clear that this most definitely fails here, as I and others have been trying to point out.
But wait!, you say (and DF says above), we just go by teh reliable sourcez!!one!. But this just circles back to the earlier point -- there are no reliable sources for determining "cult"ness of a film, because it's a vague, subjective term without a clear definition. So what?, you say again, if a source says it's a cult film, then that's an unambiguous criterion!. But now you've changed the topic of the list to "list of films that have been called cult films" instead. And that most definitely fails NLIST and is pretty WP:INDISCRIMINATE too.
You might think I'm splitting hairs or lawyering here, but I say this is a pretty vital distinction to make for keeping dreck lists like this out of Wikipedia, and for very good reason. Because invariably, lists like this turn into dumping grounds of every film anyone can find that the adjective "cult" has been applied to, and such lists have precisely zero encyclopedic value. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 21:23, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't need to be a "dumping ground" if you manage the list correctly. Also, your reading of WP:LSC is incorrect, it specifically allows for Subjective criteria: In cases where the membership criteria are subjective or likely to be disputed.. GreenC 15:13, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But it is a dumping ground. Even after all the pleading for keeping at the last AFD, nothing has been done to improve that, and there's no reason to expect it ever will. Ant it doesn't matter anyway, because this isn't a valid list in the first place, per LISTCRIT and LISTN as I noted immediately above. I think you're cherry picking LISTCRIT in such a way as to make it sound like it favors keeping, when it very plainly states what I said about clear, unambiguous criteria. And again, as I said, there are no reliable sources, because there is nothing even remotely approaching a standard definition of "cult"ness. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 17:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I were you, I would start a talk page discussion that proposes an extremely narrow inclusion criteria, then you can delete 90% of it and be happy. Then every time someone tries to add something again, and it doesn't meet the criteria, delete it. You have many options that don't require topic deletion. I do this all the time in many lists. I set tight criteria, delete everything else, and delete editors constantly who try to add things. This is what it takes. But deleting at a topic-level doesn't work because there is demand for a list like this and you will be wasting your time at AfD forever getting nowhere. Even if you delete the topic, it will probably get recreated all over again, because the demand is there. So you can either go with the flow and control it, or waste your time battling people and accomplishing nothing of value. And if this sounds unappetizing (it's a lot of work either way) walk away and ignore it, wait for someone else. -- GreenC 18:00, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, what makes a film "cult" is very subjective and there isn't a widely accepted definition of the term. Even if reliable sources call it a cult film, that's still using that source's own definition of "cult" because again, it is not a clearly defined term in the slightest. Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 09:29, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question What are the WP:LISTCRITERIA here? Absent inclusion criteria that are unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources, this is fundamentally a non-starter. TompaDompa (talk) 18:48, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It says: In cases where the membership criteria are subjective or likely to be disputed, it is especially important that inclusion be based on reliable sources. Many sources list cult films. -- GreenC 15:04, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't really answer the question: what are the criteria here, exactly? TompaDompa (talk) 05:43, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See you on the talk page to work it out. -- GreenC 17:50, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, there are none at present. That's a major problem, I'm sure you will agree. List criteria are an indispensable part of creating articles like this. They are the foundation such lists must be built upon, not an optional step that can simply be skipped with the hope of working it out at a later point in time. It's the equivalent of writing a prose article with an undefined scope. Experience has shown (see e.g. Talk:List of fictional antiheroes#List criteria) that even when there is a genuine concerted effort to come up with some kind of reasonable list criteria post-AfD, a consensus set of criteria is not necessarily settled upon. Kicking this can down the road because of a presumption that proper criteria can in theory be created is a recipe for ending up back here in a few years with no progress done whatsoever—indeed, despite the title Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cult films (2 nomination), this is in fact the third AfD for the article (and the fourth AfD for this title—the first discussion resulted in deletion). There was a 2018 AfD that resulted in the article being kept—the idea being that the problems could be fixed by coming up with proper criteria. There was another AfD in 2019 that resulted in the article being split (for size reasons, I gather)—and with general agreement that significant additional cleanup is required per the closer. There was also talk page discussion in 2019 specifically about trying to come up with proper list criteria that went more-or-less nowhere—see Talk:List of cult films/Archive 1#Inclusion criteria and other matters. This makes the whole argument that we just need to work it out fall very, very flat to me—that approach demonstrably has not worked here. Compiling a list like this without proper criteria is plain WP:Original research by way of WP:Editorial synthesis even if the individual entries have sources—the conceit is that the listed films are somehow meaningfully part of a set, but what that set is is undefined and arbitrarily determined inconsistently by individual editors in the act of adding and/or removing entries. And that's not even getting into the fact that weak (i.e. overly broad) inclusion criteria for such lists turns the scope into what is essentially an equivocation, where different entries do not represent the same underlying concept, and where canonical/uncontroversial examples and fringe/controversial examples are treated equally in direct violation of WP:NPOV. TompaDompa (talk) 20:47, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per WP:LSC, selection criteria should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources. This doesn't meet the first two points. Cult is a vague and subjective term, and this list doesn't help by including super obscure films along with mainstream successes. Like, everyone's heard of or knows about 2001: A Space Odyssey or Schindler's List. This list does not have a clear inclusion category other than "a source called it cult once," and cult itself does not have a clear definition. Also WP:NOTTVTROPES. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 03:09, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:LSC says: In cases where the membership criteria are subjective or likely to be disputed, it is especially important that inclusion be based on reliable sources. Subjective lists are common on Wikipedia and permissible. There are many sources that are lists of cult films. Just need to adjust the criteria. Find the best lists of cult films, and include those that have multiple intersections and/or called a cult film by an academic source and/or etc.. -- GreenC 15:07, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Pinging Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cult films participants who have edited in the last five years: Minskist popper (talk · contribs), Agent 86 (talk · contribs), EnsRedShirt (talk · contribs), Erik (talk · contribs), and Eluchil404 (talk · contribs).
Pinging Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cult films (2nd nomination) participants: Rose Abrams (talk · contribs), Zxcvbnm (talk · contribs), XOR'easter (talk · contribs), Clarityfiend (talk · contribs), Dream Focus (talk · contribs), and Pikamander2 (talk · contribs).
Pinging Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cult films (3rd nomination) participants: Onetwothreeip (talk · contribs), Gonnym (talk · contribs), GreenC (talk · contribs), Barkeep49 (talk · contribs), Betty Logan (talk · contribs), Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs), and Clarityfiend (talk · contribs)
Cunard (talk) 04:40, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This isn't about what people think are cult films, but what sources have called cult films. Thus it is not subjective nor unquantifiable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:28, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is subjective in the sense that what makes a film a cult film is not well defined in the slightest. I've seen multiple sources call very popular films that heavily profited cult films. Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 05:26, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And as I said above, the topic of "what people think are cult films" doesn't even remotely pass NLIST. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 17:20, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Zxcvbnm and WP:NLIST. The Criterion Collection has a list,[1] as do Time Out,[2] Filmsite,[3] etc. Rolling Stone has a list of cult classics, which includes films,[4] as well as a readers' poll of the best cult movies.[5] There are books of cult films, such as Cult Movies and 100 Cult Films.[6] However, prune really dumb, badly sourced entries. Licence to Kill is not a cult film, and the sole "reference" doesn't say it is. Same with The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen and no doubt many others, which I will begin to cull. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:14, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NLIST. Wikipedia is listing what has been called in the real world a cult film. And the real world has listed cult films repeatedly. If someone is adding a film that no one in the real world has called a cult film, remove it. If needed, there can be more specific criteria for inclusion, like being on a reliably sourced list or having three individual authorities call it a cult film. But no need to delete a whole list. We would not delete lists of films by genre just because some films are not overtly part of a genre. The problem is with the additions, not the concept of a list. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:20, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per User:Zxcvbnm and others: refine the criteria, edit the list, but don't delete. -- GreenC 15:01, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Final comment/plea to closer. Please note the pretty blatant influx of keep votes from the canvassing by Cunard above (yeah yeah, maybe not technically canvassing because all previous participants were pinged, but it was still canvassing in spirit). Also please don't be fooled by the numerical vote count that this caused and look at the strength of the arguments, which are heavily on the delete side. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 17:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not "canvassing" when all participants are notified, not in spirit, not in any way. It's a risky gambit to notify everyone, because you don't know who will respond. Only after the fact, when votes have not gone your way, do you feel the "spirit" of canvassing. What if the votes had gone the other way in your favor? I doubt your would complain. And your wrong about the strength of arguments. WP:LSC is being quoted inaccurately, there is no rule against subjective topics. Nor is AfD a place to deal with cleanup. Have you tried to fix the article with a talk page discussion to more narrowly define the scope? Have you found it impossible to craft the article in a way you find acceptable? Or do you see no acceptable solution? Because lots of other people here see solutions. Basically this entire AfD rests on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. -- GreenC 17:49, 5 April 2024 (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.