Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of films that pass the Bechdel test


 * 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. Clear consensus not to retain this as a standalone list. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 15:17, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

List of films that pass the Bechdel test

 * – ( View AfD View log )

An interesting idea, but as conceived it is WP:OR. That's because the Bechdel test is so vague that it is original research to determine whether any given film meets it, see Bechdel test. What's more, the creator of this list has departed from Bechdel's criteria to list films with non-male characters instead of women, and to require conversations of a certain length, all of which is also an act of original research.

If a list with this title is to be created, it should be limited to notable films that cite a reliable source for as to whether the film passes the test. That's because about half of all films pass the Bechdel test, which would make the list encompass half of all films, which would be WP:IINFO. But that would amount to a total rewrite of the article, so it's better to WP:TNT it now and to work on a WP:NOR-compliant version separately.  Sandstein  10:31, 24 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.   Sandstein   10:26, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.   Sandstein   10:26, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:37, 24 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete as WP:OR per nom; it's baked into the title and isn't fixable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:01, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Delete in its current state this is both original research in the extreme and indiscriminate in the extreme, and it would require a minor miracle to make this presentable as an encyclopedia article. Dronebogus (talk) 13:20, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Save As the creator of this list, I am aware that the Bechdel test has its limitations with regard to reflecting whether a film is feminist and/or gender-equal (which I cite in the description). But regarding the possible difficulties in determining whether the criteria are met (e. g. what counts as a conversation), these seem to be no greater than the difficulty of determining, say, the genre of a film. Most lists of films by genre (e. g. List of drama films of the 1990s) on Wikipedia do not seem to contain reliable sources for a film's genre, and yet do not raise WP:OR concerns. Whether or not a genre is very well defined, it usually does not take a film expert to state whether a given film belongs to a certain genre. It is a somewhat (though not entirely) subjective property of a film that most people would be able to determine for themselves when watching it. Genres are useful for describing films and are commonly used on Wikipedia, even without reliable sources. I would argue that the Bechdel test criteria are similar, and perhaps even better defined than the criteria for, say, a drama film. The "named character" and "minimum of 60 seconds" criteria are based on sources I cite in the article, not my own inventions. I chose to use these criteria for the reasons I cite in the article, but also because (as stated above) the list might otherwise become much too long. However, I admit that including non-male characters was my own idea and I would be ok with removing this for the sake of saving the article. Oleasylvestris (talk) 11:29, 24 May 2021 (UTC); 11:49, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't suggest we should have those other genre lists (hell, I'd say we don't need a huge swath of lists, given that they're rarely used and redundant with a better tag we should have had by now anyhow) but genre discussions can be extremely controversial and often are explicitly sourced on film articles because people edit-war over them. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 12:38, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, such "Drama films of the 1990s" lists are crap; many are written from aeons ago when we had different standards (though not that one, I see) and they are sometimes nominated for deletion by today's editors when they notice them. The genres should all be sourced at the very least at the page about the article, and otherwise can be removed, but the references really need to be in the list, and there should be some context/explanation of the lists. I wouldn't approve one of these as a draft if I saw one. Film genres are fairly contested but not as hot a topic as music genres—it doesn't take more than a passing interest in music articles before you see some long-term abusers and other random music fans fighting over genre changes. — Bilorv ( talk ) 00:03, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete The main article states "about half of all films meet these criteria", so an article listing them all seems to be of little value. MrsSnoozyTurtle 11:32, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. I feel like this is a case of simply not meeting LISTN. Is the Bechdel Test notable? Certainly. The entirety of film as it relates to the Bechdel test? I'd have to see some really solid evidence of that (like mainstream publications regularly using that test across all their reviews or similar.) Sarkeesian is a notable critic but using her set of criteria essentially makes this entire topic undue weight favoring a single person's scholarly interpretation. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 12:38, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep but keeping in mind in its present state it is clearly deletable. Basically, if a film can be sourced to pass the Bechdel test, it can be included to avoid OR. This shouldn't be too hard to properly source (eg a quick search on google gets me here. I would not use bechdeltest.com since that's a user-generated site, but, for example, the prior link is a study that is based on that site, so RS analysis that starts with it is fine. --M asem (t) 13:47, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per TNT (and I almost never rely on that, considering it somewhat of a cop-out). But in this situation, while I'm sympathetic to the creator's view—and Masem of course—the nomination makes te fair point that this would require a fundamental rewrite just to become encyclopedic. Could happen' might not happen; either way, it should happen or not happen out of mainspace. ——  Serial  13:58, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep or Move to Draft whilst its re-written. I do think a list of films that are independently verified as passing the Bechdel Test is valuable encyclopaedic content. Lajmmoore (talk) 14:46, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and because 1. it's a non-defining category, and 2. there don't appear to be sources for the current list, and sources will likely only exist to support films that people want to discuss in a feminist frame. It's not a sensible grouping, and it will be very inherently biased. Kingsif (talk) 14:53, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. This list will inevitably be based almost entirely on original research. Popcornfud (talk) 15:08, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - The only actual sourced content is to explain the Bechdel test itself - the actual list of films is complete WP:OR. I would be fine if someone would like to have it reverted back to draft to try to salvage it, but the original research should not remain in the main article space in the meantime.  Rorshacma (talk) 15:15, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete As this test is rarely, if ever, used in any reviews or normal coverage of a film, it will be based almost 100% on original research, which is something avoided on Wikipedia. Donaldd23 (talk) 16:06, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * it is used quite a bit as per google news search. ‎⠀Trimton⠀‎‎  16:14, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with 's nomination reasoning but would add that one can avoid the excessive length by splitting the list up. It already classifies by genre. An editor could split by genre, creating lists of manageable length like 'List of 2021 comedies that pass the Bechdel test'. Such lists would meet wp:NLIST in my book. The current list does lack reliable sources, but these WP:RS can often be found, e. g. for the list element Toni Erdmann in this culture magazine. The list creator seems to make Wikipedia better, just lack experience (e. g. committing the 'but other articles break the rules' fallacy). To enable their work and the creation of these sub-lists, I vote Blank and Redirect which preserves the page history and allows copying from it in the future, while hiding the content from readers. ‎⠀Trimton⠀‎‎  16:14, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * redirect to Bechdel test, that is ‎⠀Trimton⠀‎‎  16:15, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I moved it back to my userpage. Oleasylvestris (talk) 18:30, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , per WP:AFDEQ, you should not move pages while they are being discussed at AfD. The outcome of this discussion will still apply to the article no matter what namespace it is in.  Sandstein   19:17, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It was moved to the user's sub-space, but I've moved it back.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 19:33, 24 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom and Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 19:34, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and a big WP:SALAT fail as too indiscriminate. As MrsSnoozyTurtle has noted, this list would have to include about half of all films. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:33, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete: a perfect example of WP:SALAT's "Lists that are too general". You'd need a whole website to contain this list... and luckily, you can find one at https://bechdeltest.com/. I'm aware there are lots of disputed cases over nuanced situations which may or may not count for the Bechdel test, and the point of the test is not so much that the individual films matter (you can have an ardently feminist film which fails it, and the opposite is exceedingly more common) but that the aggregate statistics matter. It's a low bar to pass. I'd be more interested in if there are any stricter tests with significant coverage, and whether we have articles on any. (If films which fail the reverse Bechdel test are well-studied and rare enough for us to be able to maintain a list containing a good proportion of them, then possibly a list on that would work.) — Bilorv ( talk ) 00:03, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and many of the subsequent comments, which I won't repeat here. I cannot see how more than a handful of films, at best, could be included in this list based on RS references without resorting to OR. And with only a handful, out of an enormous pool (of half of all films, as suggested, or something in that ballpark), would make this so incomplete and arbitrary as to be of very little encyclopaedic value. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:33, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete as WP:TNT until we can come up with a compliant, non-OR way and non-all encompassing to possibly do. Which I'm unfortunately not sure exists unless an "official Bechdel test metric" can suddenly emerge. Obviously the test itself is very notable, but as others have mentioned the requirements are vague enough for this to be as tough as creating a list of "films where there is adequate gender representation" -- something based mostly on OR and editor opinion.--Yaksar (let's chat) 14:37, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment https://cse.google.com/cse?hl=en&cx=007734830908295939403:galkqgoksq0&cof=FORID:13%3BAH:left%3BCX:Wikipedia%2520Reference%2520Search&q=%22List+of+films+that+pass+the+Bechdel+test%22 If you click the Wikipedia reference finder link at the top of this AFD, you get two results. If you remove "list of" then you get far more to sort through.  If you search for every film on this list and "bechdel test" would you be able to find a reference?  How many reliable sources talk about this and take it seriously?   D r e a m Focus  23:54, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete As has been noted by several editors above, this is way too broad per WP:SALAT (anything even approaching exhaustive would be terribly WP:INDISCRIMINATE), and the issues that have been raised about sourcing/WP:OR are also pretty serious. Put simply, this topic does not lend itself to a list article. There's nothing to merge, and there's no point in turning it into a WP:DRAFT because the scope problem is so fundamental as to be unfixable. What we could do is take a handful of examples that are discussed/examined in-depth by WP:RELIABLE sources and add some prose about those in-depth discussions/examinations to the main Bechdel test article (compare the outcome of WP:Articles for deletion/Eco-terrorism in fiction). TompaDompa (talk) 11:31, 29 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep I find the discussion interesting but confusing. Wikipedia documentation/guidelines is extensive so I may likely be missing something. Looking over lists of Television Episodes, what makes a lists of uncited, original research of sitcom Episodes or of cast members such as Big Bang Theory okay? (Most citations used on the page are only on the ratings of the episode - I do see links to IMDb and Rotten Tomatoes in the External links but not used as citations). It is easy to verify by watching the episodes - much like watching movies to confirm if they pass the Bechdel test. Additionally, misogyny in movies has been historically extensive and not trivial so I do not think the a list of movies passing the Bechdel test would be trivial or nonrelevant. Myotus (talk) 02:23, 31 May 2021 (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.