Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of films considered the best (3rd nomination)


 * 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 per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) TompaDompa (talk) 18:53, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

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

Unencyclopedic list. Fails WP:LSC. No discernible uniform criteria. Evaluation appears entirely subjective. Subject is insanely broad. See also this related AfD. Ad Orientem (talk) 21:34, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Nomination withdrawn I don't agree, but consensus here is pretty clear. No point in dragging this out. Suggest speedy close. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:22, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:48, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:48, 11 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep This article has been nominated five times now and has been kept every single time ("snow" closes the last two times), so is there really any point regurgitating the same discussion yet again? What are the chances that a sixth discussion will produce a different result? Let's take each point one by one.
 * 1) Unencyclopedic list: The list clearly meets the criteria at WP:LISTN which states "Notability guidelines apply to the inclusion of stand-alone lists and tables. Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been." If you look at the sources used in the article there is no shortage of reliable sources discussing the greatest film, or a group of films that comprise the greatest according to some criteria. It is clearly a notable topic and therefore encyclopedic as determined by Wikipedia policy.
 * 2) Fails WP:LSC: LSC requires that "Selection criteria (also known as inclusion criteria or membership criteria) should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources. In cases where the membership criteria are subjective or likely to be disputed (for example, lists of unusual things or terrorist incidents), it is especially important that inclusion be based on reliable sources given with inline citations for each item." The list complies with LSC. Each entry is accompanied by an inline citation to a reliable source. In short, a film doesn't make the list unless there is a reliable source proclaiming the entry to be the "best" in its category.
 * 3) No discernible uniform criteria: This is spelt out in the lead which states "This is a list of films voted the best in a notable survey—either by critics or by the public." There is even an edit notice to clarify the inclusion criteria: Template:Editnotices/Page/List of films considered the best
 * 4) Evaluation appears entirely subjective. The best this and that will always be subjective, but it is not subjectively determined by Wikipedia editors. The subjectivity is confined to the polls and and surveys, and each source must comply with Wikipedia's policies, as with any other source. WP:LSC does not bar lists with subjective membership, but merely requires that they are dealt with appropriately (i.e. sources and no OR).
 * 5) Subject is insanely broad. It is broad but not unmanageably so. There are a finite number of countries, a finite number of genres, and unsurprisingly a finite number of notable surveys and polls. That fact that there are larger film lists on Wikipedia than this one implies that the list is highly discriminate and the criteria laid down by the article is keeping the subject focused and manageable.
 * The upshot is that the list is notable, well sourced and has a highly discriminate criteria and there is no valid reason to delete it. I think the time has come for a moratorium on nominating this list for deletion; it just wastes everybody's time. Betty Logan (talk) 22:49, 11 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep I am definitely not for keeping crap in Wikipedia, and there is plenty, but this list is quite informative for a person who is interested in cinema and the film industry. I checked carefully the nominator's arguments, but Betty Logan's replies are all correct. I am also impressed that a list with such a title, that does sound very broad, is so discriminate, short and well sourced. Hoverfish Talk 01:46, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * This list used to be indiscriminate and bloated but we have to thank for a terrific clean-up job. In truth I could understand why it was always getting nominated but all the outstanding issues have been addressed IMO.  Betty Logan (talk) 01:53, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Betty Logan has answered each of the points quite cogently and I agree with Hoverfish about it being discriminate and well sourced. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 02:14, 12 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep per improvements made and the very cogent arguments offered by . WP:NOTAGAIN underscores the waste of time here.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 03:00, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Snow Keep per all of the above and the previous discussions. I don't love the article, but move along, people.  UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:40, 12 July 2017 (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.