Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BFI list of the 50 films you should see by the age of 14


 * 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 delete. Tone 09:25, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

BFI list of the 50 films you should see by the age of 14

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This WP:COPYVIO survived three(!) Afd's from 2006 to 2008. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:43, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  ~Ruyaba~   {talk}  09:46, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  ~Ruyaba~   {talk}  09:46, 8 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment. As this is an article about a list that exists in the real world, we have two questions: whether this BFI list is notable, and how much of it can we quote or copy. Merely having an article about this list is not in and of itself a copyvio, so if the topic merits inclusion, I don't see that being a deletion rationale, and we've dealt with this with other notable lists. postdlf (talk) 12:14, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Google search does not evidence notability of list. Existence of list by a notable organization that has published other notable lists does not mean this is notable too. Reywas92Talk 23:48, 8 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep As mentioned above this page has survived three deletion proposals (March 2006, April 2006, July 2008). BFI (British Film Institute) is notable and a quick google search will find hundreds of movie sites where the list is displayed. I vote Keep, because the only reason 16 year old me watched half of the movies on this list was because of this wikipedia page. Will be disappointed if it's deleted. Theweekndeditor (talk) 01:52, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:ILIKEIT, not a suitable reason for inclusion. Also we aren't interested in lists of other movies sites for purposes of this discussion. Ajf773 (talk) 20:38, 9 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep has coverage and there are a number of similar lists on Wikipedia such as Rotten tomatoes highest rated and lowest rated etc, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 19:37, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Coverage is routine. Also WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Ajf773 (talk) 20:38, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete. Lack of independent sources verifying the notability of this ranked list. The three previous AfD's were conducted at a time where users voted to keep stuff based on general interest and not on policy. Ajf773 (talk) 20:38, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete: Per nom and User:Reywas92. The one reliable source states "The following is an alphabetical list of the ten most recommended films for children to see:". This is noted but where does the other 40 come from? Apparently the "British Film Institute" in the "External links" section. It is there because it would potentially be a copyvio to use as a reference. Also, WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a good argument in an AFD. Otr500 (talk) 02:50, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 22:48, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. The BFI is, of course, notable, but not every list of films that they produce is. Fundamentally, this lacks meaningful independent coverage. One BBC article isn't sufficient. And there's good reason to expect the minimal attention this list received, because the BFI itself described this list as "in no way final". As far as I can determine, they never revisited this concept after the initial BFI/Barbican Centre collaboration. Insufficient coverage plus the complicated question of whether we can even reproduce lists like this for copyright reasons both strongly suggest that there's only one policy-compliant outcome here. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 23:49, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete this cruft with no independent sources. Trillfendi (talk) 00:11, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete no independent coverage, and as noted we can't include the full list for COPYVIO reasons, so it's not even useful. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 03:42, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. Time is a brutal resolver of notability (e.g. time defending old articles with flaky references to construct "contrived" WP:GNG cases will be wasted; eventually the ILIKEIT aspect, so crucial to their support at AfD, dies).  Almost no RS to this list left; the list never caught on.  Why would somebody look for this list now?. Britishfinance (talk) 14:21, 17 February 2019 (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.