Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Warner Bros. films (1970–1979)

List of Warner Bros. films (1970–1979)

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

I couldn't find sources to add confirming all information, and showing it meets WP:NLIST / WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 15:35, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Lists. Shellwood (talk) 16:40, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep You've gotten nothing but keep votes at Articles for deletion/List of Universal Pictures films (1980–1989), Articles for deletion/List of Columbia Pictures films (1990–1999), and Articles for deletion/List of Paramount Pictures films (1970–1979), so why the hell are you nominating this too with the same rationale? And why are you only nominating one subpage in a set of eleven? This is a perfectly valid split of Lists of Warner Bros. films, a navigational and informational list that passes NLIST. The lack of sources is a cleanup issue, not a basis for deletion. Reywas92Talk 16:48, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep: There are many sources on the history and films of Warner Bros. Pictures, including Warner Bros: The Making of an American Movie Studio, Warner Bros: Hollywood's Ultimate Backlot, You Must Remember This: The Warner Bros. Story, and more. The current state of sourcing in the article is not relevant for notability; that can be fixed by editing. Keep per WP:NEXIST. Toughpigs (talk) 16:59, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep: Is an obvious split of Lists of Warner Bros. films an obviously notable topic as a set, as has been noted (by me but also by other users) in various recent very similar nominations by the same nominator...... - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)  17:45, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep: There is no good reason not to. CheekyUnicorn (talk) 19:06, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete Only one source is used here and we've got a category called Category:Warner Bros. films and other 'films by year' and 'films by year by genre' cats already; this needs proper sources. "Because it's neat" and "why the hell are you nominating this" are not proper rationales or votes!; I remind others never to attack a nominator just because you disagree with them.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 22:55, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep as a valid split from the main article. References could easily be added but are they really needed for a blue-linked list ? There is a classic Clive Hirschorn book on Warner Brothers  " The Warner Bros Story" that includes year summaries for the studio's output and secondary reviews of the individual films that covers this period, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:10, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep per Toughpigs and Reywas92. Boleyn, this is disruptive. hinnk (talk) 07:24, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep The nominator says they couldn't find sources confirming the information. Did you think to click on the articles linked to?  List articles don't have to reference everything, you can find references for the information in the articles they link to.   D r e a m Focus  13:14, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep That Article Editing Guy (talk) 22:01, 20 July 2024 (UTC)