Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of PG 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. I note Quiddity's comment to add in List of G rated films, but as that article was not tagged for deletion, I am not interpreting it as an attempt to make this a discussion of that article as well and have nominated it separately. Stifle (talk) 08:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

List of PG rated films

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

unmaintainable list RadioFan (talk) 19:50, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Add in List of G rated films too. Delete both as unmaintainable, and/or better suited for a category. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Pointless and insane. Hairhorn (talk) 20:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete The lack of references doesn't help, either. Pastor Theo (talk) 21:25, 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 This is a bad idea-- there are hundreds of films released every year-- 610 in the U.S. in 2008, according to mpaa.org; of those, G rated films are about 4 percent of that number, PG is 16%, PG-13 is 28% and R is 51%. I'd agree that this would be better served by a category, but the category system fails on this one.  Strangely enough, there is no category for a film rating, although the category freaks make a tag for everything else.  Go figure.  Mandsford (talk) 02:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep A sufficient answer to the above argument is NOT PAPER, and a reminder that we have ways of dividing up even the largest lists. There should of course be a category as well. DGG (talk) 04:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Categorizing films by every rating they received in every country is not a good idea, particularly given the length of the category name that would be necessary to disambiguate the classification (e.g., Category:Films rated PG by the Motion Picture Association of America). Lists for each of these systems can coexist, but categories would compete for each other for space by cluttering individual film articles.  Postdlf (talk) 21:02, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Personally, I'd hope that all the various ratings information becomes part of our meta-data somehow/sometime, whether through the infoboxes or elsewhere. But a hand-maintained list of films by rating seems unmaintainably large, and very US-centric, and doesn't add the metadata to the articles in question. (See also: many discussions about ratings at Template Talk:Infobox Film point to MOS:FILM). -- Quiddity (talk) 21:39, 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--16% would be about eight new PG-rated films a month, and many Wikipedia lists keep up with that level 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) 04:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment List of NC-17 rated films will need to be looked at as well, its basically a mirror of the MPAA's film ratings database. That organization is not known for taking copyright very lightly.--RadioFan (talk) 11:49, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Unless there was some creativity involved in the selection or arrangement of that list, the list isn't copyrightable&mdash;it's just an unoriginal list of facts. Postdlf (talk) 20:45, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete inane, pointless, not maintainable. Bull dog123  03:28, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yikes. How many films would this be? Isn't it like tens of thousands? I would support a tighter list of notable films that meet one of several criteria which are clearly spelled out and maintained like (i) won major awards, within reason as sometime several actors win but the film doesn't etc; (ii) notable for highest grossing in sales (iii) notable for highest attendance, which can be despite low sales figures and (iv) notable for soem other profound reasoning as demonstrated in reliable sources. If the list is cleaned up and refocussed so it's more discriminating I will support it it remaining. All the rest should be categorized, and good luck with all that. -- Banj e  b oi   21:36, 6 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.