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   no consensus. One two three... 00:42, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

List of G rated films

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

Unnecessary list that cannot be maintained. Mblumber (talk) 21:48, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete fails list guidelines, unmaintainable, unencyclopedic, and too American-centric. Could have sworn this one was deleted before, same as Articles for deletion/List of R rated movies, but can't find one under a similar name so not speediable right now. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 22:35, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Someone worked very hard on making this list, but it's badly done and unsourced -- it Grated on my nerves. Not beyond rescue, but if you want to improve it-- (a) Sources.  No, it's not enough to say mpaa.org and imdb.com are your links.  and (b) Lose the films that were released before there was an MPAA rating.  Do you plan to list every single film from the 30s, 40s, and 50s?  Some films, of course, were re-released theatrically from the mythical "Disney vault", but gimme a break.  Contrary to popular belief, lots of "G" rated films are marketed every year, and have been since the late 1960s.  In this case, I'd do my imitation of a category evangelist ("Categories are the only way to eternal navigation!") but surprisingly, there's no category for "G-rated films", although articles usually have more tags than a camper's suitcase.  Mandsford (talk) 23:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - the reason there aren't films by rating categories is because there are so many different ratings systems in so many different countries that categorizing films on that basis would lead to category clutter. Films are also released in multiple formats with multiple ratings and can be resubmitted to the MPAA or other rating board for re-rating for a re-release. I have no particular opinion on this list but if kept it should be renamed to List of films rated G by the Motion Picture Association of America. Otto4711 (talk) 23:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep No matter how long it gets, if it is limited to films with WP articles where the articles document the ratings. I agree with Mandsford that films before the ratings system should not be included.  Appropriate for a category also. I do not understand   "category clutter" as we can include categories for as many rating systems as we have documentation for. Neither our articles nor our categories are PAPER. If the list is not done adequately, there is a simple solution. DGG (talk) 03:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Per WP:Overcategorization: Categorization is a useful tool to group articles for ease of navigation, and correlating similar information. However, not every verifiable fact (or the intersection of two or more such facts) in an article requires an associated category. For lengthy articles, this could potentially result in hundreds of categories, most of which aren't particularly relevant. This may also make it more difficult to find any particular category for a specific article. Such overcategorization is also known as "category clutter". Otto4711 (talk) 04:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. These are notable films and, at least to many movie-goers in the United States, MPAA ratings are highly relevant and important characteristics of these films. This is an appropriate topic for a stand-alone list.  I'll note, for example, that List of NC-17 rated films has citations, an explanatory lede, and has been in existence and avoided AfD nomination for many years, generally demonstrating that it's possible for this type of list to meet minimum Wikipedia guidelines. The fact that MPAA ratings are specific to the United States is a reason that in this case a list may be preferable to a category. (U.S. readers can refer to the list, while non-U.S. can easily ignore it.)  I disagree with the claim that the list is unmaintainable--there are probably an average of two or three new G-rated films a month, and many Wikipedia lists keep up with those sorts of updates. The list does need to be improved, but an editor has done a lot of work and should be encouraged to add references, drop pre-MPAA films, and make other changes to fully meet Wikipedia guidelines. BRMo (talk) 04:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep A rather well-defined category that productively groups articles with a common characteristic. Are we really using arguments about categories as justification for deleting lists? If there is a legitimate issue with the article's title, consider renaming to List of films rated G by the Motion Picture Association of America which could not be any clearer. Alansohn (talk) 05:35, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * A rather well-defined category that productively groups articles with a common characteristic. - You hit the wrong keep macro. Otto4711 (talk) 08:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Guilty as charged. Make that "list". Alansohn (talk) 16:45, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. The sorting of titles beginning with "The" under the letter T suggests this was some kind of datadump rather than a manually constructed list.  Ideally, the list should be made sortable both by title and by year, and should be annotated with whether the rating was established upon a re-release or whatever (but I doubt there were many director's cuts of G-rated films).  Complaining that the list is American-centric is rather beside the point because it's a list about an American rating system, which can of course be clarified in the title.  I personally don't see the value of compiling such a list, but nor do I see a reason why it shouldn't exist, and all of these issues are matters for clean-up, not deletion.  Postdlf (talk) 14:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete for same reasons as PG-rated films Bull dog123  16:23, 5 June 2009 (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.