Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of films with post-credits scenes (2nd nomination)

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. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:39, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of films with post-credits scenes

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)

I invite the community to consider whether this list is appropriate. —S Marshall T/C 17:49, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —S Marshall T/C 17:49, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the selection criteria seems narrow enough, and post-credits scenes as a concept are a notable topic (as reflected by having their own article as well. Hard to respond otherwise when no reason for deletion is given. --AlexandraAVX (talk) 18:02, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:11, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Impossibly large list of a niche, unhelpful topic where WP:NLIST is not shown to be met. Why? I Ask (talk) 20:26, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per WP:FANCRUFT/WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Wikipedia is not a collection of movie trivia. Ajf773 (talk) 20:37, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is an appropriate companion list for the notable topic covered at post-credits scene. The list is a reasonable length and its selection criteria are sufficiently discriminate, and the members of the list are independently notable and provably members of the group. Nominator did not provide a deletion rationale and the subsequent delete arguments amount to WP:IDLI. Note that I declined a G4 speedy deletion request on this for the sole reason that the previous discussion was sixteen years ago. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:23, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:NLIST. Lots of coverage of this grouping. [1][2][3][4][5][6]. —siro χ o 22:37, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Meh, I doubt articles discussing post-credits scenes as a phenomenon (especially the firsts and famous) is the same as distinctly making note of all post-credits scenes. The actual page at post-credits scenes already mentions what the articles you linked cover (the use in superhero movies, The Muppet Movie, the first use in The Silencers, using it for bloopers, etc.). When all the encyclopedic examples are already covered in the article, it makes it hard to justify a list of every single post-credits scene. I don't see how there's a strong selection criteria, either. If simply being a member of the group is criteria, then it's too broad for this purpose. Why? I Ask (talk) 23:05, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
NLIST states The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. It's also ok that information overlaps with another article, stand-alone lists are generally accepted on wikipedia: WP:SAL. In fact, it's quite common for subjects to have a main prose article and a separate standalone list. Note also that this list fulfills WP:LISTPURPOSE as an informational list. The selection criteria are clear, WP:LSC has no suggestion of broad inclusion criteria being disqualifying. I apologize but I don't see a policy/guideline-related reason to delete this list. —siro χ o 23:40, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The guideline says: "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". It has: see sources provided above by Siroxo; and, for exapmple

etc,. It varies in scope and approach but it has been discussed as a group by independent reliable sources. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:08, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator: I don't understand the criticism that I "didn't supply a deletion rationale". Surely that's self-evident to anyone who's read the list closely enough to !vote here. Because it doesn't have even so much as a definition of what a "post-credits scene" is, this list has filled up with unsourced trivia. It's all crufted up with entries about things that happen during the credits rather than after them, and/or things that aren't movie scenes at all, but blooper reels, out-takes, and even stills. If Wikipedia really does need a List of films with post-credits scenes, then this isn't a useful starting point and we should TNT it.—S Marshall T/C 15:23, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose that a note (or a small M somewhere, or a colour) could indicate when the entry is about a mid-credit scene (default being post-credit) (although the entry makes that cleat when it is the case). But is this really the main issue? Did you mean that 2 lists should be made: one for mid-cs, the other for post-cs? But mid-credit scenes redirects to Post-credit scene, the latter being considered the generic term (which is also the case for the various forms those "scenes" take, a point that the LS clarifies immediately but that can be expanded).

However, talking about self-evident, the definition of post-credit scene is in the hyperlink present in the lead section and seems rather clear but it can be added in the text if you think that makes a difference.

So I really cannot see any issue with that list, personally, notability included.

As for a reason to delete the page, you did provide a rationale but "appropriate" is a rather vague term, I'm afraid. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:30, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You really don't see a single OR issue anywhere on that page? :)—S Marshall T/C 19:44, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't. Either a film contains a post-credit scene or it does not. If reliable sources are added, I can't see what the problem is. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:57, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And that of course is the challenge for the "keep" side of this debate: to add those reliable sources you've just mentioned.—S Marshall T/C 20:49, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:NEXIST and the sources provided above. The article itself does not need to be sourced as part of this discussion or as a requirement to keep it. Similarly, per policy (WP:IMPERFECT) it does not need to be sourced all at once. —siro χ o 20:56, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't think that's right. The list does need to be sourced---not as part of this discussion, but yes, by someone, at some point, reliable sources do need to be added. WP:V applies here just like it does everywhere else in the mainspace. This content was challenged by tregoweth, so the burden of providing sources falls on those wanting to keep it in the encyclopaedia. I am of course mindful that there is no deadline... but tregoweth challenged it sixteen (16) years ago. How much longer do you expect to take?—S Marshall T/C 21:13, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it does need to be sourced, and not part of this discussion. I think we're in agreement on both pieces. I do think it's fine for AFD to shine a light on things, but it's also true that AfD is not cleanup.

Given that this article was created ~12 years after the prior article was deleted, I think we should treat it as a separate article.

Since removing every entry all at once as a CHALLENGE might be disruptive to the development of the article, probably the most productive thing here would be to tag each row {{cn}}, and then move forward from there. I am willing to add the tags if you think that's a way forward. I can add the articles we found as secondary sources to the appropriate row when I get a chance as well, as a starting point. —siro χ o 21:28, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When the whole article's been tagged with {{cn}} for years, tagging the individual lines doesn't seem very productive to me. No, the ideal outcome here is very much to TNT this, and optionally start again with clear definitions and sources; but if that's obstructed, then I think it's best to remove the all unsourced content in accordance with the policy. There wouldn't be much left, would there?—S Marshall T/C 22:34, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please hear me, I'm willing to help out. I'm really hoping I will not be prevented from doing so. The article can easily be improved, it's not in an irredeemable state, I've worked on articles in far worse states before. Here's a non-list article I worked on quite recently [7] that was cited purely to primary sources.

I do not view the ideal outcome as TNT, as that would hamper the process of sourcing. And the main issue here is that it's just very lightly referenced. This is not a BLP, we can work on referencing over time. I proposed my solution because there truly isn't yet single {{cn}} or {{citation needed}} on the entire article at this time, and an article-wide {{unreferenced}} is notoriously unhelpful in cases where there are some references, because when editors see that its not actually unreferenced, they aren't necessarily sure what the issue is. I'd like to improve things here. —siro χ o 23:01, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there's an opportunity for a compromise outcome right there. How about we agree to userfy the whole list to your userspace, and you can move it back into mainspace when you're happy that it's no longer a disgrace to our core content policies?—S Marshall T/C 23:10, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My !vote will remain keep but draftifying is acceptable if that's the consensus. —siro χ o 23:26, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak for anyone else, but I called out your no-rationale nomination because the nominator in an AfD discussion is expected to present an argument supporting deletion, and not having done so is criterion for speedy keep number one. I read your nomination as having no opinion, not as you've since explained that you think it's obvious to anyone who reads the list that it should be deleted, and you still haven't explained why. If it's so obvious to you then it should be quite easy to explain your argument and ground it in our policies and guidelines, but really it seems more like you don't like that it exists and that's the end of your argument. You certainly haven't convinced me, at least.

As for the issue you've highlighted with sourcing, it isn't. None of the information in this list qualifies for the requirement to be sourced inline, and is generally verifiable through sources in the listed articles (I have not checked them all but this is universally true of the ones I have checked) and that is good enough for WP:V. And yes, MINREF includes "material that has been challenged" but don't demand inline sources just to prove a point. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:02, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You, a sysop, really don't see the OR issues on that page? Genuinely?—S Marshall T/C 17:42, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as it satisfies NLIST. P.S. If the nominator had bothered to check, Post-credits scene states it is also known as mid-credits scene. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:24, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Its actually very useful list DoctorHver (talk) 03:20, 6 August 2023 (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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of films with post-credits scenes (2nd nomination)

List of films with post-credits scenes

Navigation menu

Search