423:"A list topic is considered notable 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."
444:
addition, the nominator implies that we need more academic articles for this topic to be notable, and this is not true either. We need reliable sources, and we have them already that list films in this manner. I would also note that among the three major references, there is overlap in film titles. Some films like
858:
is yet another source that talks about diabetes in films. I find it reliable because there are medical professionals who analyze some of the films (all of which are already included in the list). EDIT: I think we could have a decent number of paragraphs above this list, combining this new source with
588:
I agree that this is a slippery slope given how many diseases there are, but diabetes is easily in the top 5 most common diseases (in developing countries). Also the number of films produced is (still currently) manageable, if it was books it would be too indiscriminate (over 100x the number of books
326:
While it may make sense to have articles on genres/subgenres, such as the home invasion film, and on prominent themes such as homosexuality in cinema or maybe the representation of illness in film, if they are discussed in academic film studies publications or by multiple serious critics, I can't see
805:
Actually, we have only one solidly reliable source: Ferguson's "The Cinema of
Control: On Diabetic Excess and Illness in Film". The other sources do not speak to notability. Aside from Ferguson, the only talk of diabetes in film are from diabetes advocacy groups (which literally cover all aspects of
308:
It may not be as common a plot element in films as, say horse racing, insanity, parenthood, crime solving, combat, or shipwrecks, but it does not have to be the most common thing. It was clearly used a a major plot element in the listed films to provide some reason for urgency, as in Panic Room, or
955:
For what it's worth, diabetes is very uncommon to see in films. Dr. Ferguson (the academic reference in this article) said so himself, and his article named the majority of the titles already listed. Whatever titles that do not have a footnote to him are just other references being used instead (so
786:
by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list." We have references where the list topic is discussed as a group or set. That is our guiding star. We are not going to have articles like "List of films featuring pencils" because
239:
This stand-alone list is not attempting to be a list of films in a particular genre. It is a list of films with content in common. Film genres and film content can overlap (like with home invasions), but they can also be mutually exclusive. This list is based on references outside of
Knowledge, so
760:
Many of these films aren't "featuring" diabetes, diabetes is merely mentioned. If we had pages for films that mention any concept, where would be stop? As has been mentioned, a page featuring films for "diseases" with some sort of limitation on what diseases, would be a useful page and a lot more
412:
as a notable list. (Note: I am the creator of this article.) We have three references explicitly about diabetes in film. Two references list how diabetes has appeared in film, so this shows relevance outside
Knowledge. The academic article obviously cites many examples of diabetes in film for its
443:
To expand on my original comments, the nominator says the list is not notable. This is not true, as I referenced the notability guidelines for stand-alone lists above. The sources used in the article justify such a list, so unless their reliability is disputed, there is a claim to notability. In
344:
Why not? Such a list is clearly a reliable source that can be used, and if we have more than one list, there is precedent in the world outside of
Knowledge for a list in it. I understand that this is a topic of marginal notability, but it still has basis in reality. I referenced the notability
606:- per the sources provided by Erik in the article. It meets the Knowledge criteria for Stand-alone Lists as a referenced unified topic. (I also like Clarityfriend's and Erik's ideas for the possibility of expanding the topic to include other well-represented diseases: creating a general
589:
to films). I think an article on "films featuring disease" is a great idea, if it's delineated in the top 5 or 10 diseases, and perhaps some consideration about fiction vs documentary since documentaries may be too indiscriminate, except for certain ones (difficult line to draw). --
819:
Are you saying the other sources are not reliable? Assuming they are considered reliable, then per the notability guidelines for stand-alone lists, they absolutely qualify in supporting the list topic. If the sources' reliability is questionable, let's review them. We have one from
327:
enough coverage on diabetes in film for it to be a notable topic. There's a lot of lists of films published with different connections or common features, but just because a movie magazine/website does a "top ten films featuring X", we don't need to have an article on it. --
740:
seem borderline, but many in the list do not belong there. There are many other such disease as a central plot element, and we should list them separately. We could put them as a section in one very big list, but I do not see how that would be helpful.
345:
guidelines for stand-alone lists below, and it is not quite similar to notability expectations of a prose article. (As I mentioned, I do not think there is enough content for a prose article about this topic, but there is enough for a list.)
165:
832:
is not just a blog; it has been referenced in many film articles with its reliability never questioned. The "monster weddings" link is a strawman; indieWire has hosted all kinds of interviews and analyses. I've already covered
197:
452:, " incorporates elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers." Knowledge is not intended to be a source of original and previously unpublished content, but that is not the case here.
567:. This helps provide context for the relevance of this stand-alone list. As I said above, a source does not have to be "academic" to indicate notability. This is clearly a topic of minor—not nonexistent—note.
196:
There isn't significant coverage of the topic in sources; there seems to be only one academic article about the subject. While it may be an interesting list, it simply isn't notable. See also,
159:
903:- needs trimming, but I believe that the representation of diabetes in film is likely a notable, sourceable topic - as noted above there is at least one good academic source available.
309:
a sly way to kill someone, as in ones where the insulin is adulterated. Such lists and categories are an appropriate way to organize the coverage of films in the encyclopedia.
91:
86:
118:
95:
78:
837:
above as a published periodical in circulation. It is clear that this is a topic of narrow scope but the interest is definitely there, as reflected by these sources.
679:
with a sub-section on diabetes. Physical afflictions are a common sub-plot in many films and there's easily room to include other illnesses. Off the top of my head,
125:
939:- the notable subject argued for is "(Portrayal of) Diabetes in film" - I doubt any of the sources actually attempt to list all films that feature diabetes.
389:
369:
676:
611:
180:
528:.) Still, I think it would be more palatable to have individual lists depending on available references. Maybe there could be a mix of both?
147:
82:
532:
could both link to stand-alone lists about specific diseases and also have embedded lists if a particular disease is not referenced (per
522:
It would be neat to see lists of films featuring each of these, especially cancer. (I created this particular article while working on
969:
950:
927:
910:
895:
872:
850:
814:
800:
770:
752:
720:
659:
626:
598:
580:
549:
517:
465:
438:
401:
381:
358:
336:
318:
300:
279:
253:
234:
204:
60:
141:
74:
66:
672:
607:
17:
855:
137:
946:
187:
529:
498:
475:
965:
868:
846:
796:
576:
545:
461:
434:
354:
342:"Just because a movie magazine/website does a 'top ten films featuring X', we don't need to have an article on it."
249:
990:
689:
40:
940:
766:
594:
492:
214:
153:
560:
653:
332:
513:
728:
but trim. Our established practice is to include only the ones where the plot element is import, such as
986:
713:
36:
487:
414:
225:
891:
762:
729:
590:
448:
are mentioned in all three lists. I understand that the notability is relatively marginal, but per
296:
288:
173:
956:
there is not excessive footnoting). So this list is not that likely to grow much longer, really.
923:
907:
647:
328:
478:. Diabetes isn't notable enough for a list of its own, but it's another story when you throw in
779:
617:
533:
509:
418:
397:
377:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
985:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
737:
708:
636:
314:
218:
961:
887:
864:
842:
792:
572:
541:
457:
430:
350:
292:
245:
563:, which is a reliable source because it has the editorial oversight of the periodical
919:
904:
748:
504:
417:
prose article, but there is enough content here for a stand-alone list. According to
276:
807:
733:
704:
699:
449:
393:
373:
54:
112:
811:
694:
310:
201:
684:
524:
639:
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
957:
860:
838:
829:
788:
568:
537:
453:
426:
346:
241:
828:
shows plenty of background that demonstrates its credibility. In addition,
776:"If we had pages for films that mention any concept, where would be stop?"
743:
264:
806:
diabetes) and a blog that publishes a myriad of silly film lists (i.e.
263:, I don't see how featuring diabetes is a notable attribute of films.
680:
479:
782:
says, "A list topic is considered notable if it has been discussed
821:
483:
825:
979:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
425:
The last sentence is also what justifies reference #9. Thanks,
646:
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers,
413:
topic. I do not think there is enough content out there for a
778:
This is where policies and guidelines can be referenced.
108:
104:
100:
787:
there just are not sources that do that, unlike here.
172:
240:
this is not a topic that is exclusive to
Knowledge.
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
993:). No further edits should be made to this page.
614:, although it definitely needs some citations.)
703:, etc. It does have the potential to become an
918:Valuable resource appropriate for wikipedia.
671:- I like the idea of renaming the article to
186:
8:
388:Note: This debate has been included in the
368:Note: This debate has been included in the
198:Afd: List of films featuring home invasions
941:
707:golem so we'd need to be careful of that.
390:list of Lists-related deletion discussions
387:
367:
287:per nom & above comments. Seems to be
683:especially could do with a sub-section -
673:List of films featuring physical diseases
608:List of films featuring physical diseases
370:list of Film-related deletion discussions
217:. Diabetes is not a notable film genre.--
824:which is an established media network;
677:List of films featuring mental illness
612:List of films featuring mental illness
7:
419:the guidelines for stand-alone lists
24:
610:. I see that there is already a
530:List of films featuring diseases
476:List of films featuring diseases
75:List of films featuring diabetes
67:List of films featuring diabetes
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
970:02:51, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
951:01:58, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
627:19:33, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
599:20:53, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
581:15:52, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
550:10:24, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
518:01:56, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
466:10:30, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
439:22:51, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
402:16:05, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
382:16:05, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
359:10:24, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
337:13:28, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
319:21:01, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
301:16:57, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
280:06:54, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
254:10:24, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
235:06:53, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
205:05:48, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
61:21:05, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
928:23:22, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
911:16:45, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
896:00:21, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
873:21:10, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
851:21:02, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
815:19:03, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
801:12:55, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
771:11:29, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
753:06:49, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
721:01:14, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
660:00:17, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
1010:
982:Please do not modify it.
493:The Pride of the Yankees
32:Please do not modify it.
649:Riley Huntley (public)
886:per Erik and DGG. --
675:as complementary to
508:would fit in well.)
499:The Andromeda Strain
808:10 Monster Weddings
730:Reversal of Fortune
488:Huntingdon's chorea
486:, alien diseases,
48:The result was
784:as a group or set
662:
658:
404:
384:
215:WP:INDISCRIMINATE
1001:
984:
943:
738:Soul Food (film)
717:
652:
650:
645:
641:
625:
623:
620:
450:the five pillars
415:Diabetes in film
273:
270:
267:
232:
223:
191:
190:
176:
128:
116:
98:
57:
34:
1009:
1008:
1004:
1003:
1002:
1000:
999:
998:
997:
991:deletion review
980:
835:Diabetes Health
715:
656:
648:
634:
621:
618:
615:
565:Diabetes Health
446:Steel Magnolias
271:
268:
265:
226:
219:
133:
124:
89:
73:
70:
55:
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1007:
1005:
996:
995:
975:
974:
973:
972:
930:
913:
898:
881:
880:
879:
878:
877:
876:
875:
853:
763:Deathlibrarian
755:
723:
665:
664:
663:
654:
643:
642:
631:
630:
629:
601:
591:Green Cardamom
583:
554:
553:
552:
470:
469:
468:
406:
405:
385:
364:
363:
362:
361:
321:
303:
282:
258:
257:
256:
194:
193:
130:
69:
64:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1006:
994:
992:
988:
983:
977:
976:
971:
967:
963:
959:
954:
953:
952:
948:
944:
938:
934:
931:
929:
925:
921:
917:
914:
912:
909:
906:
902:
899:
897:
893:
889:
885:
882:
874:
870:
866:
862:
857:
854:
852:
848:
844:
840:
836:
831:
827:
823:
818:
817:
816:
813:
809:
804:
803:
802:
798:
794:
790:
785:
781:
777:
774:
773:
772:
768:
764:
759:
756:
754:
750:
746:
745:
739:
735:
731:
727:
724:
722:
719:
718:
712:
711:
706:
702:
701:
696:
692:
691:
690:Casino Royale
686:
682:
678:
674:
670:
667:
666:
661:
657:
651:
644:
640:
638:
633:
632:
628:
624:
613:
609:
605:
602:
600:
596:
592:
587:
584:
582:
578:
574:
570:
566:
562:
558:
555:
551:
547:
543:
539:
535:
531:
527:
526:
521:
520:
519:
515:
511:
507:
506:
501:
500:
495:
494:
489:
485:
481:
477:
474:
471:
467:
463:
459:
455:
451:
447:
442:
441:
440:
436:
432:
428:
424:
420:
416:
411:
408:
407:
403:
399:
395:
391:
386:
383:
379:
375:
371:
366:
365:
360:
356:
352:
348:
343:
340:
339:
338:
334:
330:
329:Colapeninsula
325:
322:
320:
316:
312:
307:
304:
302:
298:
294:
290:
286:
283:
281:
278:
274:
262:
259:
255:
251:
247:
243:
238:
237:
236:
233:
230:
224:
222:
216:
212:
209:
208:
207:
206:
203:
199:
189:
185:
182:
179:
175:
171:
167:
164:
161:
158:
155:
152:
149:
146:
143:
139:
136:
135:Find sources:
131:
127:
123:
120:
114:
110:
106:
102:
97:
93:
88:
84:
80:
76:
72:
71:
68:
65:
63:
62:
59:
58:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
981:
978:
936:
932:
915:
900:
883:
859:the others.
834:
783:
775:
757:
742:
736:.Some, like
734:This Old Cub
725:
714:
709:
698:
688:
668:
635:
603:
585:
564:
556:
523:
510:Clarityfiend
505:Brian's Song
503:
497:
491:
472:
445:
422:
409:
341:
323:
305:
284:
260:
228:
220:
210:
195:
183:
177:
169:
162:
156:
150:
144:
134:
121:
53:
49:
47:
31:
28:
695:Morgan Hess
160:free images
780:WP:NOTESAL
761:workable.
685:Le Chiffre
534:WP:NOTESAL
525:Panic Room
221:xanchester
987:talk page
888:Arxiloxos
830:indieWire
394:• Gene93k
374:• Gene93k
293:IllaZilla
289:listcruft
37:talk page
989:or in a
966:contribs
947:Hasirpad
920:Etobgirl
905:Claritas
869:contribs
847:contribs
797:contribs
710:Stalwart
637:Relisted
577:contribs
559:I added
546:contribs
490:, etc. (
462:contribs
435:contribs
355:contribs
250:contribs
119:View log
39:or in a
622:Writer
166:WP refs
154:scholar
92:protect
87:history
56:MBisanz
937:rename
812:Zntrip
758:Delete
681:asthma
669:Rename
619:Cactus
480:cancer
473:Rename
324:Delete
311:Edison
285:Delete
261:Delete
211:Delete
202:Zntrip
138:Google
96:delete
942:הסרפד
822:dLife
810:). –
749:talk
705:WP:OR
700:Signs
557:Note:
484:ebola
181:JSTOR
142:books
126:Stats
113:views
105:watch
101:links
16:<
962:talk
958:Erik
935:but
933:Keep
924:talk
916:Keep
901:Keep
892:talk
884:Keep
865:talk
861:Erik
856:Here
843:talk
839:Erik
826:this
793:talk
789:Erik
767:talk
726:Keep
693:and
655:talk
604:Keep
595:talk
586:Keep
573:talk
569:Erik
561:this
542:talk
538:Erik
514:talk
502:and
458:talk
454:Erik
431:talk
427:Erik
410:Keep
398:talk
378:talk
351:talk
347:Erik
333:talk
315:talk
306:Keep
297:talk
291:. --
277:Talk
246:talk
242:Erik
200:. –
174:FENS
148:news
109:logs
83:talk
79:edit
50:keep
949:)
744:DGG
732:or
716:111
697:in
687:in
536:)?
213:as
188:TWL
117:– (
968:)
964:|
926:)
894:)
871:)
867:|
849:)
845:|
799:)
795:|
769:)
751:)
616:—
597:)
579:)
575:|
548:)
544:|
516:)
496:,
482:,
464:)
460:|
437:)
433:|
421:,
400:)
392:.
380:)
372:.
357:)
353:|
335:)
317:)
299:)
275:|
252:)
248:|
168:)
111:|
107:|
103:|
99:|
94:|
90:|
85:|
81:|
52:.
960:(
945:(
922:(
908:§
890:(
863:(
841:(
791:(
765:(
747:(
593:(
571:(
540:(
512:(
456:(
429:(
396:(
376:(
349:(
331:(
313:(
295:(
272:P
269:I
266:J
244:(
231:)
229:t
227:(
192:)
184:·
178:·
170:·
163:·
157:·
151:·
145:·
140:(
132:(
129:)
122:·
115:)
77:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.