Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hollywood cycles

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. (non-admin closure) feminist 03:58, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hollywood cycles

Hollywood cycles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

This is one of the original articles from the days when Wikipedia was just Nupedia's article incubator and didn't require sourcing (the 13,240th page on Wikipedia, for those interested in ancient history). I've just procedurally declined a WP:PROD on it as it survived Votes for deletion back in the distant past when this was considered a Featured Article and "not outright gibberish" was pretty much the only notability criterion, and is thus ineligible, but I agree that this is purest original research and if sources haven't been added in 16 years, they're never going to be.  ‑ Iridescent 10:01, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 10:08, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 10:08, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, this looks like it would be an attempt to WP:CFORK a film history article if it were made nowadays. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 10:09, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In fairness, this was created considerably earlier than History of film. Nupedia was weird like that; Larry preferred topics the niche-ier the better. ‑ Iridescent 10:12, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I know, and that's why I said "if it were made nowadays". As it stands, it pretty much is a WP:CFORK considering that we now have far better articles on the same or similar subjects. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 22:53, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Undecided, may be enough for an article (if kept, rename Film cycles). There's a bit out there about the phenomenon.American Film Cycles: Reframing Genres, Screening Social Problems and Defining Subcultures, Cycles, Sequels, Spin-offs, Remakes, and Reboots, "Film Cycles, Industry and Audience: Hammer Films' 'Monster' Cycle and American International Pictures Poe Adaptations", "Reel Revolutionaries: An Examination of Hollywood's Cycle of 1960s Youth Rebellion Films", some discussion in Postfeminism and Contemporary Hollywood Cinema. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:43, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I find that it's basically a restatement of what a genre is or tropes are. When I hear a term like "cycle", I think of a rash of movies that come out over a small period of time that have a lot in common with a movie that just came out and was massively successful (e.g. the Americanized J-horror movies in the wake of The Ring, animated fish movies like Shark Tale in the wake of Finding Nemo). The article doesn't currently imply that it's describing the tendency for trends in Hollywood among filmmakers. The most we may be able to do is merge the results of this research into an article like film genre. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 08:14, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the same as a genre and should not be merged therein. For one thing, there's the crucial time element. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:26, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Go with the flow. Clarityfiend has done more research than I care to do. If this is more than just a dictionary definition — if it actually a WP:Notable thing — then we should keep it. If not, well — we shouldn't. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 19:16, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is obviously a stub and the nomination doesn't offer a clear reason to delete it. The topic is obviously notable as it's easy to find a stack of sources including:

1. American Film Cycles: The Silent Era
2. American Film Cycles: Reframing Genres, Screening Social Problems
3. Cycles, Sequels, Spin-offs, Remakes, and Reboots
4. Film Cycles, Industry and Audience
5. Hollywood Agit-Prop: The Anti-Communist Cycle, 1948–1954
6. Ghetto Reelness: Hollywood Film Production, Black Popular Culture and the Ghetto Action Film Cycle
7. Reel Revolutionaries: An examination of Hollywood's cycle of 1960s youth rebellion films
8. Discourses of affect in the 1930's Hollywood horror film cycle and in its aftermath to 1943

Andrew D. (talk) 17:46, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or merge into a relevant article on history or genres. Montanabw^(talk) 20:08, 25 January 2017 (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.