Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Recut Trailers

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. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:57, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Recut Trailers

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

We have an article on Re-cut trailer, which is a notable internet phenomena. However, this is a list that is unsourced and only serves to list all known trailers. Given that most of these trailers are user-made and borderline on copyright issues, this is effectively an indiscriminate list, not appropriate for WP. There are probably some recuts that are more notable than just being link-dropped by reliable sources, but these limited examples can be documented on the main topic without a problem. MASEM (t) 14:51, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the user who marked this article for deletion. In response to the article is unsourced, the article is a list of a type of video, which seems to me to either be a reference list in itself or not requiring a reference list. These video's do not infringe on copyright issues per Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. Thank you.
EzPz (talk) 15:01, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The videos as hosted at youtube (in general) may be copyvios, though may also be fair use there, and per WP:ELNO, we would not link to copyvios on other sites. But this list is indiscriminate because you are just linking to videos that are created by users with no other filter, which is extremely indiscriminate. Like we do at List of Internet phenomena, we need the filter of being recognized as a recut trailer by a reliable source to avoid the indiscriminate nature. --MASEM (t) 15:07, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is WP:NOT a directory of external links. - MrOllie (talk) 15:05, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In reference to other lists Wikipedia has, such as List of fictional humanoid species in comics, and List of fictional dhampirs. . . I personally feel as though this list is fine.
EzPz (talk) 15:11, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of the fictional humanoid species, they limit it to those that are notable - that have their own article, which means that on those pages, they are sourced, so that's a filter. On the fictional dhampirs, these are from notable works of fiction. Here, we are talking user-generated content that has shown no degree of notability, and thus is a problem. --MASEM (t) 15:20, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. What about List of photo-sharing websites, List of blogs, List of chat websites. I guess the point I'm making is, Wikipedia has alot of stuff on it that isn't exactly famous. . . . and with an article already on the topic of recut trailers, I think it's appropriate to provide a list for such items.
EzPz (talk) 15:22, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is WP:NOT a directory of external links. Doubling down on this one, this is probably the simplest and strongest case for deletion.--0pen$0urce (talk) 15:36, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To further build if you actually read WP:NOTLINK this is exactly what this article is, a repositiory of external links. It also hinges on self promotion/soapboxing depending on the intentions of some editors.--0pen$0urce (talk) 15:43, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as far as self-promotion/soapboxing, that does not apply to me . . . I've been going over the WP:NOT and WP:NOTLINK and I can't help but come to agree with what y'all are saying. . . as far as the technicalities of Wikipedia, I do see now how it is not in agreement with guidelines. I don't like it, but I see it. I am removing my opposition to deletion. That is all, thank you.
EzPz (talk) 15:49, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and I expect a snowball situation will develop here as users look at this article, which is nothing but an indiscriminate list of external links. As mentioned above this is basically a directory of a certain type of copyright violations. And of course, the idea that we should ever try and list every single example of an popular type of webvideo is just ludicrous. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:19, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As the sole author of List of Recut Trailers, I blanked the page in accordance with Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#G7. Author requests deletion to speed up the process of getting it deleted.
EzPz (talk) 22:21, 12 September 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.