Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of British Film Institute releases


 * 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:53, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

List of British Film Institute releases

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:NOTCATALOG; WP:INDISCRIMINATE -- wooden superman  14:03, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 14:55, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 14:55, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 14:55, 15 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep worthwhile subpage to the main BFI article, alternative would be an ungainly merge. Artw (talk) 16:30, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It shouldn't be merged. Per the guidelines above, this information doesn't belong on Wikipedia.  '''--[[User:Woodensuperman|wooden ]] superman ''' 16:47, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Which is the applicable clause there? I'm not seeing one. Artw (talk) 16:05, 16 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. WP:NOTCATALOGUE. Ajf773 (talk) 18:01, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep legitimate and notable list topic. FloridaArmy (talk) 03:51, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep It has reliable sources. Ciccio.santini (talk) 09:55, 16 January 2018 (UTC) — WP:SOCKSTRIKE --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:11, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Where? Ajf773 (talk) 08:11, 17 January 2018 (UTC)


 * delete As WP:NOTCATALOGUE. Being able to source something is not a valid argument, and never mind that at present there aren't any sources given. Really, the quality of AFD arguments reaches new depths every week now. Mangoe (talk) 11:52, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * How ironic, you quote a guideline but fail to offer any argument. You should try and explain how the guideline applies. NOTCATALOGUE warns against articles that include "product pricing or availability information" - but there is none here. A list of films from a film studio or production company is a valid Wikipedia article, and BFI has produced many films. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:04, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Really? I was under the impression that Seven Samurai was a Toho release. Come on: the mere lack of prices doesn't make this less of a catalogue of things sold by the BFI. Mangoe (talk) 15:42, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The polices under WP:NOTCATALOGUE are not limited to examples in WP:NOT. The absence of pricing doesn't make it any less of a catalogue. Ajf773 (talk) 21:33, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Which part of that page applies? Please be specific. FloridaArmy (talk) 22:40, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * This list article is essentially a product database. i.e. a catalogue. Ajf773 (talk) 02:52, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 06:41, 23 January 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  J 947 &thinsp;(c) , at 04:30, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. No refs in the article, without RS coverage it is just a catalogue. I looked on google and news, nothing. I have sympathy for the keep votes but this has been open for 3 weeks or so, and still no refs. Szzuk (talk) 17:07, 3 February 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.