Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/18 (British Board of Film Classification)


 * 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.  Sandstein  09:27, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

18 (British Board of Film Classification)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article is redundant as it's already covered in British Board of Film Classification and isn't notable enough to be included (why does an individual rating need its own page? should other ratings get their own pages too?) Kylesenior (talk) 15:34, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:27, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:28, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment: Redundancy (or overlap) is not a reason to delete if this article about a sub-topic (a specific rating under a system) is explored more in depth than the system's article would do. The system's article does not have an "18 certificate" section or subsection to look up for coverage focused on that certificate alone. Now the question is how much the 18 certificate has been discussed to qualify as non-trivial coverage that can be summarized in a standalone article. This article's sourcing is not extensive at all, but we should at least look to see what exists out there about this certificate and its historical and cultural connotations. Judging from what I've read in the past, it seems like Wikipedia could easily have an article about MPAA's R rating alone. Obviously the BBFC's 18 certificate is not an exact parallel, but I think there would likely be similar coverage relating to audience access and profitability. Just because Wikipedia has not had rating-focused articles does not directly mean it should not have them. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 17:42, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak delete It is not implausible that we could have an article about each rating but History of British film certificates covers this pretty well so I don't think we absolutely have to do so. My main concern is verifiability. The article is poorly referenced and could well have an OR problem. Better references could move it to a weak keep for me so I certainly don't think that it is intrinsically irredeemable. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:57, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Redirect to British Board of Film Classification per past consensuses involving parental rating systems and individual ratings (for instance, TV parental guidelines (US) with TV-MA). Doesn't need a breakout.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 03:59, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Redirect BOVINEBOY 2008 13:22, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep There are informative pages on both the 18 and R18 classification. To incorporate all this into the main page would risk overwhelming it with detail and unbalancing the content. A certain amount of redundancy is necessary. It would help to have more explicit links to signpost the subpages.T0mpr1c3 (talk) 15:03, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment What else is there to expand on? It's an adults-only rating. Most of the article is unsourced textwalls about film cuts, bloody stuff, obvious items such as A Serbian Film needing additional cuts to actually appear on a screen, and inane micromanagement of sex scenes. The text can easily be cut down considerably and remove the fine and minute detail and merged into the BBFC article.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 08:42, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:10, 3 July 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   19:07, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep (perhaps a little weak, mind), as I feel the article justifies its own inclusion. I would not want to see a merger and redirecting would not serve any purpose. The article could do with a cleanup, but I don't feel it's redundant or useless. Bungle (talk • contribs) 20:52, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep I think the 18 cert in the UK has enough standalone notability for its own article.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 09:21, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * keep per above - Enough standalone notabailty for an article, Plenty of soucres on Google, Passes GNG easily. – Davey 2010 Talk 21:04, 17 July 2018 (UTC)


 * 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.