Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Mission: Impossible film locations

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. I'm closing this discussion as Keep as even those arguing for Deletion acknowledge that the articles follow Wikipedia policy on Lists.

WP:FANCRUFT are editor essays and do not have the support of being a policy or guideline. The question seems to rest on whether or not an editor sees these articles as providing value to the project which is a subjective opinion on which well-intentioned editors can disagree. Without providing evidence that these two articles are a violation of content guidelines, I find Keep to be the default decision. There is a good case for a Merge but that option is contested and is only offered by one editor. But the possibility of merging some of this information on articles on individual films can occur on article talk pages. My only opinion on this is that I hope that the sources located in this discussion be added to the articles. Unfortunately this doesn't happen with most AFDs I review but hope springs eternal and I'd like to encourage those editors advocating Keep to take this next step in improving the articles. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:14, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

List of Mission: Impossible film locations

[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)

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

fancruft. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:24, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Lists. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:24, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom – A google does brings up lists of locations for both films, so they both meet
WP:SIGCOV IMO. There is very little of encyclopedic value in these lists. We are essentially providing a tourist guide/trivia. Betty Logan (talk) 01:05, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. As Betty Logan above says it meets NLIST, which 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. Some sources are in the page, other obviously exist:

Etc.

Those articles vary in scope, quality and approach but the list has been discussed as a group by multiple independent reliable sources. The list allows to organise the entries, and add comments and explanations that are needed, and to source them properly. Keep JB filming locations for the same reasons. (Even more sources exist ([1][2], [3], [4], [5][6][7][8] [9]etc.). If readers want to use this for touristic purpose, is that bad?-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:35, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets
WP:INDISCRIMINATE does not seem to be violated given the context and references provided. —siro χ o 19:20, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Reliable sources giving significant coverage have been found. Dream Focus 20:08, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Arguably meeting general notability "is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page". The sources given and that turn up do not discuss the group in any in-depth or encyclopedic manner, so I am not convinced it actually meets notability, which requires non-trivial coverage. The James Bond list has zero citations, by the way. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 00:54, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello TenTonParasol. The article may have zero citations, but cites have been brought forward in this discussion which meet the criteria for keeping a page at AfD (even if the cites are not yet attached to the article itself). Randy Kryn (talk) 04:03, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I should've clarified that the no cites comment was more of a "someone should get on that" thought. I'm still not convinced by the quality of sources brought here and maintain "just bc it barely meets notability does not necessarily warrant a standalone article". Listicles without real commentary or in-depth analysis are not considered good sources for other subjects like characters and video games and indie films, so I don't see why they count here. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 04:24, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NLIST language encompasses the two articles, and should apply to the subjects you mention as well: "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, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. 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." Randy Kryn (talk) 05:03, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As stated, I don't feel enough if the coverage presented is non-trivial enough. A source simply listing the locations without any further commentary does not satisfy my interpretation of significant coverage and what remains isn't enough for me to believe a standalone is warranted. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 05:24, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above comments, both now easily meet
Shadow of Keep. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:48, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment – Editors should remember that just because a topic has received some coverage from some sources does not mean it is automatically notable enough for a standalone article. ~10 sources are not enough to meet the
WP:FANCRUFT that only interests a particular audience. This is Wikipedia, not Fandom. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:15, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Ten sources are quite enough to pass the GNG in any circumstances! Also they get new coverage for the newer films, different locations for them to talk about. Dream Focus 21:36, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Every article only interests a particular audience. Please consider that Mission Impossible fans, James Bond fans, film fans, and location fans make up a pretty large "particular audience". An audience large enough to bypass the linked essay about fancruft (whatever that is, almost all of the pages Wikipedia editors label fancruft seem pretty much like encyclopedic topics to me). As for the other link, it's to a template. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:59, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per
WP:NOPAGE. For once, there's actually some marginally reasonable appeals to NLIST here. However, the information about filming locations is something that can and generally should be covered at the individual film articles (and in prose, not in a list). There's absolutely nothing to be gained by collating all of this into yet another list. It's low-quality duplication of loosely-related material. Just because these films happen to be in the same franchise, there's nothing particularly enlightening about carving out one specific aspect of their production and putting it all in a combo list/article. I could probably just as easily source "List of plots of Mission: Impossible films" based on a quick search, but again, that's information that should be at the individual articles, not duplicated in a separate list. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 03:38, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Are you suggestion Mission: Impossible (film series) as a target or something else? —siro χ o 04:31, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rather, I meant to merge information about each specific film to the article on that specific film, not to the article on the whole franchise. Assuming, of course, that it's not already there...the first one I checked (the first film) didn't seem to have filming location info, so I just figured there'd potentially be at least something to merge in total. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 05:05, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Even though I consider these lists trivia, I find them preferable to just dumping listcruft into the film articles themselves. As you can see at Thunderball_(film)#Filming, these articles already include location information where it is relevant, and when there is something encyclopedic to say about it. I don't think just dumping a list of filming locations into the article would improve it; in fact, I think it would be detrimental. In appreciate you are advocating for it in prose form, but that is not really how merges work. If we are going to keep this trivia, then I suppose listcruft articles are the appropriate place to store listcruft. Betty Logan (talk) 06:12, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per
WP:NOPAGE. This type of list is inappropriate, the location info can be easily covered in each individual film article's production section, not necessary to fork it into its own page. --Mika1h (talk) 17:07, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Not reading anything at
WP:NOPAGE that applies to this article. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:10, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep as a notable standalone list topic per the sources provided by Mushy Yank. I first considered advocating for a merge to Mission: Impossible (film series), but the sources are good in listing locations that feature in the films. However, the existing content needs to be sourced, and we should probably have specific inclusion criteria, like being part of one of the lists or a source focusing especially on a location (as opposed to something reported offhand). We will always have redundancy on Wikipedia, it's simply that the scope will vary. Like a film series article will repeat a lot of cast and crew from each film's article, but it won't list all of them. This list shouldn't list all locations, just the ones that have received notice. In addition to the sources mentioned, I saw Time Out, Lifestyle Asia, The Standard, GQ India, Uproxx. The film series is a pretty unique one in terms of its so-called globe-trotting, so if the sources are there, I'm fine with this kind of scope. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:28, 29 October 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.