Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of films considered the best


 * 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   keep. It appears to be snowing Guerillero &#124; My Talk  15:46, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

List of films considered the best
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

The article is based on reviews and lists on the web. You cannot give a subjective opinion a reliable source, nor verify it. What's next? A list of best colours based on colour expert reviews? This list is against everything Wikipedia stands for and should be deleted. FnH (talk) 22:03, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Please link the 3 previous discussions. Dru of Id (talk) 22:53, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Here's one: Articles for deletion/Films considered the greatest ever
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete there could never be an objective criterion for "best". As evidenced by the size of the list, the article's definition is lacking and over generous. Best by whose standards? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 00:38, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep This meets criteria of WP:LISTPURP and WP:SALAT and is well sourced. With respects to TPH above, the criteria for inclusion on their specific lists are set by the sources provided, and we are not here to place a personal or arbitrary criteria for such... only to report and share their findings. If the list seems too long to some, then a split might be discussed on its talk page, and does not require a deletion. We do not judge the truth or not of the criteria used by the various organizations and sources for inclusion in their lists, just so long as the information provided is verifiable in sources deemed suitable for offering their judgements. As long as the list remains sourced and is not indescriminate, it serves the project and our readers. I wish to remind the 8-edit nominator that EVERYTHING included in Wikipedia is to be based on the reliable sources we find on the web and elsewhere, just so long as the source is considered reliable enough for the information being sourced. We accept that American Film Institute may report on the films they consider "top". We accept that The Moving Arts Film Journal may report on the films they consider "top". We accept that IGN may report of whatever films they consider "top". We accept that Rotten Tomatoes may report of whatever films they consider "top". We accept that BBC News may report of whatever films they consider "top". We accept that Entertainment Weekly may report of whatever films they consider "top". We accept that Time (magazine) may report of whatever films they consider "top". We do not demand or expect that all sources use the exact same criteria. As the threshold for inclusion is beased upon verifiability, and not what may or may not be a subjective or objective truth, we judge the messenger, not the message. And to address your comparison... IF a set of experts decided to offer opinions on what they considered the best colors and why, we could consider an article. But that's an argument for a different discussion.  The list is definitely not "against everything Wikipedia stands for" as Wikipedia specifically has criteria for such lists.   Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 01:08, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem is, that there are tens of thousands of movie reviews written. Online, on paper, in books and so on. WHO decides which sources are important and valid when looking for subjective opinions? This list could easily be manipulated by finding many enough good reviews of a film, and adding it on the list. Collecting reviews and doing somekind of "best" list of them, is not objective, and the whole process of picking and choosing which reviews count is own its own, subjective and against Wikipedia policies. We cannot access all the reviews written in this world. --FnH (talk) 12:01, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * What you call a "problem" is a strength of Wikipedia... one that encourages cooperative effort and the work of a community. And again, inclusion herein is not dependent upon subjctive or objective truths, but upon verifiability of what is reported as being said and by whom, and this encyclopedic list itself follows the policy and guidline instructions for its use.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 18:29, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep: The nominator misrepresents how the list works. There shouldn't be any subjective opinions by editors, the opinions belong to the reliable sources and are merely represented with due weight in our list, the same way all content is included on Wikipedia. Because reviewers' "best of" are subjective opinions doesn't mean we can't objectively create a list of those opinions. — Bility (talk) 01:35, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This argument is ridiculous. The opinions are subjective, whether they come from a critic or an editor. It makes no difference how many sources the article has, ALL OF THEM are sources of SUBJECTIVE opinions. No matter how many times you say it, the list remains subjective. --FnH (talk) 11:38, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Why is it necessary to do this every two years or so? It can be a pain to keep out films that do not belong, but is has value. BollyJeff  ||  talk  01:37, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep The only way to really 'verify' the criteria for best films is too use representation from professional critiques, reviews, audience polls, opinions, recognition from organizations and consistent cultural attitudes. This article does just that. It could be improved upon though. ~ Jedi94  (talk) 20:47, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep per flawed justification. "You cannot give a subjective opinion a reliable source"? Then what are all those things in the Notes section? If we were to follow the nominator's line of reasoning, we should also delete the winners from Academy Award for Best Picture. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:50, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * A list of Academy Award winners and nominees is objective and factual. These films were nominated for an award, and that's what the list deals with. There's nothing subjective about it, only facts. A list of films considered best by random websites and critics is completely subjective. --FnH (talk) 11:47, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Any award assigned by members of an organizations toward other members of their organization and based upon their personal likes and dislikes is not objective. What we do with such lists is simply report "objectively" on the subjective results, and in that manner we preserve a NPOV.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 18:36, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Roger Ebert, the BBC, Time magazine, etc. are random websites and critics? Clarityfiend (talk) 20:13, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep I've been round and round with AfD complainers for years, trying to remove lists that are a compilation of data.  WP deletionists get a clue.  Compiling information so it makes sense is one of the great things we do with Wikipedia.  Just because it is not one list copied from a single source doesn't mean its not valid.   This is a subjective field, the lists that serve as the sources for this article are quoted in the ledes of many of the films in question.  They serve to draw significance to an art.  It elevates the subject from the dry; this is a . . . about . . . made by . . .  in (year), to explaining how it is received and accepted, that it is exceptional.  Carry that forward to this list, which then shows how that interrelates--what other films in the genre are considered the best by that source or other sources.  This list itself serves to give further credibility to the sources by showing the other comparative films that are considered the best.  If a source were to be outlandishly out of line, consistently, then we might "consider the source" as the phrase goes.  The main point is information belongs on Wikipedia.  Campaigns to delete or hide content, particularly well sourced and well founded content like this, are a terrible exercise of a few people's opinion trying to govern, perhaps even censor what the world is allowed to learn from this database. Trackinfo (talk) 02:33, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, that's exactly what it means. By picking and choosing, which sources of subjective material are reliable and verifiable is already on its own subjective, and this list can be manipulated in several ways. Again, how can you define a reliable source for a subjective opinion that you can use on Wikipedia? What do you base this definition on, and why some opinions are more important than others? Millions of people believe in ghosts. Is this belief subjective or objective? Millions of people are racist. Subjective or objective? Since we cannot access every single written review, nor can we pick and choose which ones count and which don't... This list simply cannot be objective, balanced nor fair. --FnH (talk) 12:33, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Move - Although the article list itself is notable, the title of the page is suggesting it fails WP:POV, which it doesn't. This page has been moved and renamed countless times already, and if there is any place there is to form a consensus on where to move this to the widest audience, its the AfD. --Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 02:46, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The title doesn't fail WP:POV, because it's not an editor's point of view. These movies are found on lists literally titled "Best of...". Everyone discussing this deletion should take care not to conflate the subject of the article, which is inherently subjective, with the way the content is included, presented and titled, which adhere to all the normal Wikipedia policies. — Bility (talk) 03:58, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, it does. The opinions sourced and presented are by critics, who are people presenting their personal opinions, and is, therefore subjective. If this list is kept, then Wikipedia should also accept list of best songs, best cars, best colours and so on. --FnH (talk) 11:32, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * A very good point. ---Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 20:53, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep for the same reasons as last time. While I'm not in favour of limits on AFDs, like an article can only be nominated X times, it seems to me common sense that if one is going to attempt to re-nominate something that's already been kept twice after two nearly unanimous discussions, the nominator really should take the time to present an excellent case, ideally with new evidence or a policy shift that somehow invalidates the previous consensus.  Clearly, the nominator has not done so. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  05:48, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If you're interested enough to vote, you should be interested enough to read the already-existing debate on this matter. --FnH (talk) 11:35, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per the above. The nominator is confusing the problem of a Wikipedia article advancing subjective opinions, which violates WP:NPOV, with the non-problem of a Wikipedia article being about subjective opinions, which does not violate WP:NPOV. The concept and discussion of "best film" is a notable one, and an article about that concept can comply with all WP policies by summarizing the statements of notable critics and institutions and the results of significant polls. We are therefore not asserting that Film X is the best and citing to Critic Y's list to verify that claim, but instead asserting that Critic Y says Film X is the best and citing to Critic Y's list to verify only that he said it. Though of course one need not defend all such hypothetical "best of" subjects in order to defend this one (see WP:OTHERCRAP, WP:ALLORNOTHING, and straw man), I would imagine "best song" would also fit that bill as a suitable subject matter in the same way (cf. Category:Lists of rated songs, Albums considered the greatest ever), and even "best color" may have merit in some specific contexts such as an article about the popularity, critical assessment, and psychology of certain colors and color combinations in interior decorating or fashion. postdlf (talk) 14:41, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep: This article has been AFD'd too many times. I was even starting to cleanup this article but so far I only got to action and animation genre and I haven't done much work past that. Most of the reasons why it should already stay are already explained. What this article really needs is cleanup and some watchers but not deletion. Jhenderson  7 7 7  16:43, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - While I acknowledge that the title is problematic, given the ambiguous word "considered," the subject itself does seem to be notable, and there do seem to be sufficient reliable sources to make an article. The fact that it has several problems, including I think the title and maybe the general structure, is generally not considered sufficient grounds to delete articles. There could be a very useful article here, although, admittedly, getting it to that status might be a bit of a problem. John Carter (talk) 17:26, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - A discriminate list that is functional as a Wikipedia entry. It is an objective list of various opinions regarding films, and it is well-sourced. Northamerica1000(talk) 18:25, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Very valuable list of sources. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:34, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - As long as all entries are backed up by valid refs (such as referrals by respected industry critics and positions on valid industry polls - such as AFI, BAFTA & even IMDb) it remains a good resource.Angry Mustelid (talk) 22:10, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - This indeed is not a list of the "best" films. Rather, it is a list of those films considered to be the best.  There is a difference.  Keep.  Thanks.   (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:11, 18 February 2012 (UTC))
 * Keep - It's a great summary article, and I can't think of another place better than Wikipedia to have an article summarising films considered the best. That in itself is not exactly the best reason, but provided the films listed are sourced (and it's quite good at the moment), I don't see why this shouldn't stick around.  Ss 112  15:09, 19 February 2012 (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.