Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buddy 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.

Buddy film

The result was withdrawn by nominator. Non-admin closure. Enigma ^message 15:32, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No sources. Represents someone's original research. No evidence this term has been notably used by any reliable sources. Loodog (talk) 02:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This term, or probably more commonly, "buddy movie", has certainly been used in reliable sources, so it's simply a matter of finding cites for listed films and {{fact}}ing or removing ones for which none appear. While I'm in the shop, much more worthy of attention is both the title and content of Grande Dame Guignol, the title of which is I think a neologism used in one DVD commentary and some blogs and amateur websites, and the content of which is a decent but entirely OR essay. 86.44.18.48 (talk) 03:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to be clear, it's also my belief that a serious and well-sourced treatment of the term can exist under the nominated title. 86.44.18.48 (talk) 03:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable idea though the OR charge is justified. JJL (talk) 03:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Buddy film" is listed in this book as "a film that highlights the relationship between two men who are often forced to work together even though they don't like each other at first. They then go on to battle adversity together and become buddies by the end of the picture." (You can get a preview of the page at Amazon.com.) So, it is a real "subgenre". I'm not sure if the topic deserves its own article, but it at least deserves a mention somewhere. Zagalejo^^^ 03:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure' The Buddy cop film seems to be a recognized genre. However, almost any story could be a "buddy film." All it needs is two people working together: Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson, R2D2 and C3PO, Hamlet and Horatio, etc. Redddogg (talk) 03:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 11:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it appears to be a notable term, per Google Books and Google Scholar. However, the list should be removed from the article. There is no criteria for these items, and I disagree with a number of them. Keeping the list is only going to encourage more of these opinionated items. Keep the article, remove the list and note the diff on the talk page, and add some sourcing to this article. It may be worth merging this article and Buddy cop film. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 11:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, here's an example of useful content:

“

Ed Guerrero argues that the buddy film of the 1970s rose out of a reaction to the women's movement ("Black" 238-39). To punish women for their desire for equality, the buddy film pushes them out of the center of the narrative and replaces the traditional central romantic relationship between a man and a woman with a buddy relationship between two men. By making both protagonists men, the central issue of the film becomes the growth and development of their friendship. Women as potential love interests are thus eliminated from the narrative space. In the 1970s, the relationship between two buddies was predominantly one between two white men; in the 1980s, the genre mutated into a relationship between a black man and a white man.

”

— Gates, Philippa (Spring 2004). "Always a Partner in Crime: Black Masculinity in the Hollywood Detective Film". Journal of Popular Film and Television. 32 (1): 20–29.

This appears to be just scratching the surface. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The quote describes a hopelessly wide genre that doesn't have women as love interests, which, according to the examples given on this page, isn't even necessary for a buddy film (e.g. Wedding Crashers, Sideways, Knocked Up). If this isn't going to be a category encompassing half of all film, that source needs some examples.--Loodog (talk) 13:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the list is useless, but the historical context is useful. Why does the topic itself have to be deleted when the list itself can either be removed or trimmed down to those independently recognized as "buddy films"? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Produce a source showing the term "buddy film" being used, describing its significance as a genre, and giving examples. As of now, the "examples" list is a colossal crud bucket of OR.--Loodog (talk) 13:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC). Keep. --Loodog (talk) 13:31, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to !vote if you already nominated. The nomination itself is a !vote for deletion. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other sources that I found:

Hunter, Stephen (1990-12-15). "Buddy pictures: Male bonding a persistent theme in Hollywood movies". The Record.
Wuntch, Philip (1992-05-09). "Hollywood's Best Buddies: Sometimes, a film's popularity depends on whether it makes the right friends". The Dallas Morning News.
LaSalle, Mick (1996-08-08). "The Buddy Film Goes Way Back - Sure, it's a formula -- but not all are alike". San Francisco Chronicle.
Strauss, Bob (1997-07-18). "More Than Skin-Deep: The reasons (and rewards) behind Hollywood's interracial buddy-movie pairings". Los Angeles Daily News.
Goldstein, Patrick (2001-10-15). "It's Still a Guy Thing: The Evolution of Buddy Movies". Los Angeles Times.
Konigsberg, Ira (1998). The Complete Film Dictionary. Penguin. p. 41. ISBN 0140513930. BUDDY FILM: A film that features the friendship of two males as the major relationship ... Such films extol the virtues of male comradeship and relegate male-female relationships to a subsidiary position. Male relationships have always been a significant element in our popular culture, from the Leatherstocking Tales of James Fenimore Cooper to television beer commercials.
The list is original research, yes, but this is not List of buddy films. This is about the primary topic buddy film, and it can be demonstrably explored in a historical context without needing such examples. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep in mind that although sources apparently exist, they are not in this article, and have not been incorporated into it. I didn't nominate this article for deletion because a suitable article cannot be produced, but because the article that exists meets criteria for deletion.--Loodog (talk) 14:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that sources exist to establish the meaning of the term and also provide historical context validates this article. Original research about a topic should be removed, but topic itself should not be removed. It's like throwing the baby out with the bath water. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:10, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:SOFIXIT. JuJube (talk) 14:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Erik and JuJube. Cliff smith ^talk 16:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources exist; the genre is notable. What remains is a matter of cleanup. PC78 (talk) 17:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sourced and notable. . We do not delete articles for being unsourced, just unsourcable, and perhaps we should stop accepting nominations that are not accompanied by some at least rough preliminary evidence that sources do not exist. DGG (talk) 18:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG. It's too easy to slip deletions through just because nominators and discussants fail to adequately determine the actual state of potential sourcing, and many people seem to have the attitude that this isn't necessary.--ragesoss (talk) 22:44, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are plenty of sources that indicate that the term is indeed used in today's culture. The article can be improved, but it clearly should exist. Enigma ^message 02:56, 10 August 2008 (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.