Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of G-rated films


 * 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. PhilKnight (talk) 20:55, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

List of G-rated films

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

(contested prod) List of loosely associated topics. There are thousands of G-rated movies with little, if anything, in common beyond the fact that you can let your 3-year old watch it. Complete list would be ridiculously huge and would not provide any substantial content. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 13:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Objective criteria for inclusion? [x] yes [ ] no.  Notable subject matter? [x] yes [ ] no.  There is no deadline, and arguments aimed at the {lack of} diligence of editors do not justify deleting content. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 13:49, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Apparently, this only applies for MPAA-rated G movies. Should G-rated films that have been labelled as such after going through the OFLC get their own list? Black-Velvet  14:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Rated D - for Delete The MPAA kicked off its ratings in 1968, and this list is nowhere no complete. Pending a full listing of all G-rated films over the past 40 years, this article cannot be considered encyclopedic. Ecoleetage (talk) 15:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete -- "List of" articles shouldn't be for lists that can be as long as this one would be. On top of that, any lists like this are much, much better handled as CATEGORIES... that's what they are there for, use them. DreamGuy (talk) 14:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as unmaintainable, way too broad a topic, plus it might require some element of OR because virtually every movie made before 1962 or so defaults to G anyway. And then of course there are movies that were G and were upgraded to PG and vice-versa. I don't seem to be able to find any similar lists for PG, R, etc. There is nothing particularly notable about a film being rated G. 23skidoo (talk) 14:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:LIST does allow lists that are redundant with categories, however I feel that the list must provide something of value that the category does not -- organizing by something other than alphabetical, for example. Without seeing anything like that here, I have to say delete, but I will change my vote if the list is changed in any way to justify its existence alongside the category. --Jaysweet (talk) 15:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is exactly the kind of article that shows that lists and categories aren't strictly interchangeable. Nom's reasons are sufficient to warrant deletion even if there's no strict criterion to warrant it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I removed the prod, partly to see what people in general think, but  the argument for keeping would go that given that we can write an article about a movie, and that would include tits rating, we can make both a list an a category of them without much trouble, and without any particular difficulty to maintain. The advantage of a list is that it immediately provides context--date at least, and could be expanded to cover director and notable stars. Is it relevant information that some people might expect to find collected together--I think it has, and therefore it violates no policy to have it. Those not interested can ignore it. there's no list too long for the mediawiki software to handle, or clever technical devices like alphabetization to organise. Given the difficulties of searching, and the value of browsing, we should have every such list we can. DGG (talk) 17:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Tell me DGG, what is the "tits rating" for a G-rated movie? ;p Anyway, I'd have to actually see some effort and/or a plausible automated method to add the contextual information you suggest before I'd change my vote away from a "delete".  The article you propose is worth keeping, but it is not this article. --Jaysweet (talk)


 * Delete Since the ratings have been around for 40 years, this list would be very, very long (longer than three Longcats), and would have no real value. The films have nothing in common save for their MPAA ratings; why not a list of every film that's been PG (all DreamWorks animated material), PG-13, R, NC-17 or X? Heck, why not even list the stuff that had the now-extinct GP rating? Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!) 18:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Point of fact Nothing is longer than longcat. Even three longcats is only as long as one longcat.  This list might just be wider than widedog, though. Protonk (talk) 05:54, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per everything above. I'm glad that the author tested this out before adding to the list, which would go into the hundreds, if not the 1000s (particularly since re-releases made before 1968 get a rating).  Granted, since the current MPAA system began, there have been fewer "G" films than "PG" or "R", but this would never be more than an indiscriminate list.  Is Cinderella more "G"worthy than Happy Feet? Mandsford (talk) 19:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as too overly broad to be useful. Jclemens (talk) 20:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.   —PC78 (talk) 02:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - this list gives no encyclopedic content. Even if it were completed, it would be nothing but a listing of movies that are only tangentially related. --T-rex 19:22, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per previous comments, also: a) would be USA-centric (are we going to maintain general audience film lists for every country?), b) IMDb already has a search function for this, why waste human effort on maintaining it, keeping it current. User529 (talk) 21:54, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Given that "G" ratings are creatures of a US body, it's hardly USA-centric to make a list of films so rated, any more than it would to omit Canadian provinces from a list of US states.  (They'll be there eventually, but not yet.  We're working on it.)  Moreover, there is nothing at all that prevents other countries' rating systems from generating similar lists. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:26, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment This whole discussion has kind of Grated on everyone's nerves... Mandsford (talk) 22:49, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment How very, very cheap. Black-Velvet  09:53, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Glad you hated it. Mandsford (talk) 13:21, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - This list is poorly organised and USA-centric. WikiProject Countering systemic bias will have something to say about it if it stays. Black-Velvet  09:55, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. This information should be in a category if we have it, not a list.  Inclusion is a binary characteristic, suitable for categories, and it eases the maintenance headache. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 01:10, 28 July 2008 (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.