Deletion of List of films with similar themes and release dates (3rd nomination)

Comment: The last two times this was nominated I thought it was better than most indiscriminate lists, and many of the people who supported keeping it said citations comparing the films were necessary and must be added to avoid the list descending into , or relying on the personal opinions of passing editors (ie, an editor thinks "''Movie A was a bit similar to Movie B, I'll add it to the list''"). Not only have sources failed to appear, but I've been watching this article closely for a while, and regular editors have actually been ''removing'' requests for sources. That's right, far from addressing the concerns raised in previous AFDs, they have been making this list worse. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_films_with_similar_themes_and_release_dates&diff=136372041&oldid=136149334 This aggressive edit summary is just one of many attempts to prevent sources being added, this editor claims that reading the individual articles is enough and citations are ''not'' needed, so interpretation and opinion is needed on the part of the reader. This list will never be anything but  and #IINFO
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:OR||WP:NOT)

Comment: No external criterion for what should be included here, hence this is |original research
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: List of films with similar themes and release dates has not been able to exercise any sort of notability as an article.  Under , "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.  'Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject '''directly in detail''', and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but less than exclusive." (Bolding is mine.)  Furthermore, the note for that particular passage says, "Note 1: Examples: The 360-page book by Sobel and the 528-page book by Black on IBM are plainly non-trivial. '''The one sentence mention by Walker of the band Three Blind Mice in a biography of Bill Clinton (Martin Walker. "Tough love child of Kennedy", The Guardian, January 6, 1992. ) is plainly trivial.'''"  (Bolding is mine again.)  As I have said and some other editors have said, the so-called phenomenon of copycat films or copycat media in general need to be explored with significant coverage, and not through reviews saying, "Hey, these films came out at the same time and have the same plot.  Anyway, the first one was good, and the second one sucked."  The listing of these details are |indiscriminate details that are |synthesized to support the argument of this topic.  "Significant coverage" would be more appropriate, and if there is no detailed commentary on this phenomenon, then it may not necessarily have encyclopedic value
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTE||WP:IINFO||WP:SYN)

Comment: just how similar are we talking anyway? This is too #IINFO|indiscriminate and nigh impossible to |verify
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:V)

Comment: all cited content to a prose article properly titled to cover this pattern, especially with more attributable sources that study trends in the film industry.  As a list, this article has been abused by |synthesized additions.  When a prose article is created, then the cited examples should be whittled down to the most significant to reduce the nature of an |indiscriminate list
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYN||WP:IINFO)

Comment: The intro, while plausible, is unverified and fails ; the subject itself is inherently, irretrievably incomplete and unencyclopedic.  Furthermore, there is a direct correlation between the number of movies in a section and the decade it describes, which leads me to believe this article is the product of a group of young people.  It's an example of the same historical shortsightedness that causes the Top Ten Greatest American polls to feature Oprah at number 8.  Somehow the majority of Greatest Americans have lived in the last 20 years.  I think the same shortsightedness applies to this article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: Even if this is true, #INFO|who cares
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: I can see an article being written on the topic of "copycat films" but this list fails .  Furthermore, attempting to categorize/classify these films as "copycats" due to a percieved similarity between subject matters and a similar release date is painfully |original research.  Without substantial sourcing to prove that "Movie X and Movie Y have similar themes" grouping them as such is a primary observation and Wikipedia is not the place for such things
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:OR)

Comment: The criteria for inclusion as to "similar themes" are too vaguely defined, making this #IINFO|indiscriminate information
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)