Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of film sequels considered better than the original


 * 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 of the debate was delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 06:07, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

List of film sequels considered better than the original

 * Delete. It is my opinion that this list demonstrates an opinion, and thus does not conform to a neutral point of view, which is quite literally THE central tenet of Wikipedia.  The IMdB ratings are used as the metric, but using those figures as the baseline for the article is merely a method of conveying an opinion, such as one might encounter when creating a Wikipedia article relaying a list of reasons Democrats believe we should not be in Iraq. &mdash; Mike &bull; 04:02, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, utterly subjective by definition. &mdash;tregoweth (talk) 04:03, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:OR. Yanksox (talk) 04:06, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete on the list of articles that are bad ideas, "compilations of stuff people posted on other websites about totally trivial topics" should rank pretty high up there. Opabinia regalis 04:09, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Opening sentence makes it pretty clear it can't be NPOV, ever. Daniel Case 04:37, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, original research/POV. BryanG(talk) 04:46, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete unmaintainable OR, would require constant supervision to remain accurate. Also the opinions are not necessarily uniform or reflective of a broader social consensus, given that registered IMDb users would probably be more critical and analytical of the technical and other aspects of films than the bloke on the Bondi tram. In other words - inherently POV. Jammo (SM247) 05:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Jammo. GassyGuy 06:26, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep The article doesn't appear to be NPOV sice it using strict IMDB rating rather than opinion. See also List of film sequels by box-office improvement . - SimonLyall 08:31, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. IMDB ratings render it de facto neutral.  I think it is borderline notable, hence "weak" Fiddle Faddle 09:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Unusually, I find myself advocating the keeping of an article others think should be deleted. Keep because the list is not inherently POV, and can, with work, be made to be an extrememly useful source of information (see Films that have been considered the greatest ever, Computer and video games that have been considered the greatest ever etc; hence it may be advicable to move this page to Film sequels that have been considered better than the original or something like that). IMDB may not be the ideal metric, but at least it is a fairly large sample size, and provides a place to start. Perhaps in future this article could cite critics such as Ebert, who have gie their views on sequels that are better. But, as long as the article says "this source says that this was better than that, this other source disagreed", it is not inherently POV. Yes, the article needs work. But no, it should not be deleted. Batmanand | Talk 09:16, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete listcruft, OR possibly POV Computerjoe 's talk 09:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, fails WP:NOR. Possibly WP:NPOV, as well. --Coredesat 10:06, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Opabina regalis and Jammo; imdb is not a WP:RS, suffering from miniscule sample size and systemic bias. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:47, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, IMDb are perfectly capable of analyzing their own ratings. As above, it's not an RS.  Dei zio  talk 13:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Highly informative, good subject, worth expanding with other references. --JJay 13:20, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. It is neither POV or OR. Eixo 14:41, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. This article has been added to http://www.antiwikipedia.com. The less you allow to be on the Wikipedia the more traffic we get. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.124.29.28 (talk • contribs)
 * Hooray You mean a wiki whose official purpose is to be a totally indiscriminate collection of information?!?!? That's brilliant. I sincerely applaud its creation and the initiative of its founders. I heartily propose that official Wikipedia policy be changed so that every single deleted article or article section gets automatically transwikied to Antiwikipedia instead. Let's create some coding to streamline and automate that process, so it runs as fast as possible. Oh, do you want to accept our banned editors too, as political refugees?Bwithh 16:58, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Not to mention some of the "Every Sperm is Sacred" crowd. --Calton | Talk 05:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Keep as long as it strictly uses only IMDb to decide what is better. Wikibout-Talk to me! 15:31, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The issue with IMDB is that it is not a definitive source it's just a poll of people who vote on what they think. There are many different barometers of deciding what makes for a quality movie. It's too tough to rely on a source like that. Yanksox (talk) 15:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree. If guidlines are made for the article so that it isn't called better just because of a few votes, I think a poll is an accurate sorce for if it is better than the original. Wikibout-Talk to me! 15:44, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It's too dificult, it is much easier if a published list can out that was, say published by AFI. This is a shifting list that is constantly altered by frankly anyone whom sees fit. I am a register member of IMDB, and I can tell you that people will bog down pages with as many votes as they can one way or another. It is not a reliable source, that does not have any expertise. Yanksox (talk) 15:47, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Alright. Wikibout-Talk to me! 17:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. POV in nature. --Kristjan Wager 16:20, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as POV. If we solely use IMDB as a reference (a poor idea since anyone can pay to be included) then why not just put a redirect to their list? (I'm not serious, just pointing out flaw of using only single source.) Ifnord 18:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Arbitrary list that fails WP:NOR: ("introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source"). --DaveG12345 18:44, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete POV and WP:OR. BJK 19:12, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak delete it does use a poll as the source, but it's still hard to maintain an NPOV, because that doesn't represent a good enough sample. Also it's hard to monitor to make sure it does. --BennyD 19:26, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above comments, and also the possibility that IMDb user ratings are copyrighted (see ). Extraordinary Machine 19:59, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete OR/POV, infinitely expandable and generally pointless. Choalbaton 20:10, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete gren グレン 23:21, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep. It's not so much point of view as it is popular opinion. tmopkisn tlka 23:27, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment The difference being? Jammo (SM247) 02:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: IMO, this article is inherently POV and violates WP:NOR because the act of choosing to assess a pair of films for inclusion in the list is arbitrarily decided by the editor. It isn't an analysis process carried out by a verifiable third party that is then cited in WP. So however careful the editors are, it will always fail WP:NOR. The article's current POV crowbarring in of films that do not fit the alleged selection criteria is just the icing on the cake. If it existed as "List of films considered by someone reliable and verifiable to be better..." then it would be a different story. But it isn't. --DaveG12345 02:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Single (unreliable) source, original research (comparing the source's ratings), arbitrary choices, constant and unmaintainable fluctuation of data, etc. --Calton | Talk 05:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete POV and unencyclopedic listcruft, and imdb.com is not a reliable source. -- E ivindt@c 06:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * STRONG DELETE The very basis for this article is POV. Delete it and be done with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Konman72 (talk • contribs)
 * Weak keep This goes along with some other articles like films considered the best ever or worst ever, but the criteria are a lot wonkier here and the more obscure nature of the topic means there are fewer sources to pull from. Ace of Sevens 00:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per the above. Next we'll have List of film sequels considered as good as the original. Mr Snrub 16:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per the unreliable source. Also the very notion that sequels are worse is not sourced, thus the very idea of the list doesn't really fit in an encyclopedia. Punkmorten 22:48, 30 June 2006 (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.