Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of films with disabled protagonists

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 no consensus. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 10:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of films with disabled protagonists

List of films with disabled protagonists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Delete -

• Note: This debate has been included in the
  SkierRMH 23:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This debate has been included in the
  SkierRMH 23:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. This list would be a very useful adjunct to an article on disabilities and public perception of disabilities. Furthermore, the criteria for films being included in the list is well-defined-- the film must be about a disabled person. Crypticfirefly 05:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it fit the definition the film must be about a disabled person that would be something worth hanging on to, but look at the list of movies - most of them have nothing at all to do with disabilities or disabled people, they merely feature a disabled character.
    Arkyan 18:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Then you should remove those films from the list. The list is titled "films with disabled protagonists" not "films with a disabled character in them somewhere."
      The Elephant Man is about a person with neurofibromatosis. Etc. Crypticfirefly 05:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
      ]
• Delete Loose association. Could be categorised if required. A list is meant to have some sort meaningful entry data, not just a list of names, otherwise it is merely a category listing.--Dacium 06:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, perhaps categorize, but this isn't list material. JuJube 07:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A list of films about disabilities or that otherwise deal with the subject of disabilities as a primary plot point would be fine, but a list of movies with disabled protagonists by itself is arbitrary and indiscriminate.
  Arkyan 18:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Delete per Otto and Arkyan. I reject arguments that this would be better served by categorisation, but agree that it fails
  WP:NOT. A list of films about disabled persons or disabilities is a different matter. -- Black Falcon 21:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • I am changing my recommendation to keep. I had missed the part about the list being about "protagonists" of a film, which is certainly not indiscriminate. -- Black Falcon 05:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Clearly defined list. -- Stbalbach 04:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. However, it would be beneficial to add explanations after each film on which protagonists are disabled and how. --Nehrams2020 05:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but cleanup. Explanations needed, and only if disability plays a central role in the film, keep entry in list (as in Children of a Lesser God). Hoverfish Talk 08:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep If the protagonist is disabled, the disability is inherently a plot point. If the protagonist ignores it and gets on with winning over his love or running for president, that is as significant as their becoming depressed and committing suicide. This is a valuable page for people studying attitudes toward disability. --agr 16:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Black Falcon superapathyman 17:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per WP:LIST: information and navigation. A disabled protagonist is sufficient commonality. - Peregrine Fisher 02:00, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment actually, there are several lists of this type that might be much better as a merged larger article with information about the disabilities portrayed in each film:
  List of films featuring mental illness and List of films featuring blind characters, many of which have been nominated for deletion by Otto4711 and are thus also currently undergoing their own AfD debates at this time. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 05:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - That the protagonist is disabled is an important thematic element for the films in this list. It's not "trivial" information. --JayHenry 21:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I maintain that the arguments above stating a film with a disabled protagonist implies a common, important thematic element are inherently flawed. IFF the assertion could be made that a disabled protagonist meant that the film would make use of the disability as a major plot element, then I would be willing to concede the point and vote for a keep. However, that kind of assumption cannot be made - just because the protagonist suffers a disability does NOT universally imply that the disability will play an important, or even passing, role in the film. As a case in point,
  Arkyan 15:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Reply - How people with disabilities are portrayed in literature is certainly a legitimate matter of interest. The Matrix trilogy poses problems for any study since it questions the very meaning of reality. That said, the notion that a blind or deaf person is endowed with compensating superior powers in other realms is a common disability stereotype and The Matrix is arguable a good example. Why, we might ask, did the writer choose that particular injury for a character in a savior role? Anyway, a few difficult cases should not invalidate the validity of a list.--agr 16:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - Thank you for elaborating on your position. I'm sure your comparison of this list to List of films with male protagonists must be intended as an exaggeration, but I understand your concern about the inclusion of outliers. Nevertheless, I would argue that while it is possible that a film with a disabled protagonist would not address disability in any way, one would expect that such films would be less usual. Repectfully, I must still disagree. Crypticfirefly 01:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete plus there's a mistake in Unbreakable. Usedup 00:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, article desperately needs sourcing, but compiling lists from external data is definately not the same as OR. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 21:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment : Regardless of the result of this AfD, our aim should be to turn this and many other film lists into informative articles, with an explanation (or "summary") for each entry, with merges wherever this would help us organize the matterial better and with a cleanup or expansion to justify the title. A mere "Keep" shouldn't indicate that we should have lists that are just substitutes to categories. During this massive AfD, the US Marines list was transformed into a good example of what we could do here too. Hoverfish Talk 09:15, 3 March 2007 (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.