Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The 50 films you should see by the age of 14


 * 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 no consensus; the article is already tagged as copyvio, and will be dealt with as usual. - Liberatore(T) 15:10, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

The 50 films you should see by the age of 14
Just one list brought out by the British Film Institute once, doesnt deserve its own article -- Astrokey44 |talk 14:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. The title is a clear attempt at promotion and persuasion. Brian G. Crawford 14:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, promotion, ad and listcruft. --Ter e nce Ong 15:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per User:Terence Ong. J I P  | Talk 15:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. If this was from a non-reputable group, like a blog or some commercial website, I might say delete. However, the British Film Institute is clearly a highly important and prestigious organization. If they are putting out this kind of list, based on voting from experts, the world needs to take notice and we should be talking about it here. Otherwise, I can't see why we are helping to promote and persuade people by publishing 100s of lists such as Academy Award for Best Picture. -- JJay 15:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep. I can't see a reason not to report this list, although the title is an interesting issue. JPD (talk) 16:01, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Copyright violation, delete with extreme prejudice. Changing numbers 11-50 into alphabetical order is not sufficient 'original work' to make this substantially different from the source.   Proto    ||    type    16:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep We have loads of similar lists (for example, 100 Greatest British Television Programmes) and they're generally kept. Not being a lawyer, I can't comment with authority on whether such lists are copyvios or not, but I don't see why they would be, any more than reporting the winners at each year's Oscar ceremony would be a copyvio of the awards broadcast.  I certainly think that the authority of the BFI (and AFI, and similar articles) is vital to keeping these.  I'd certainly not want to start seeing articles on the "Top 10 hottest asses as reported by someguysblog.com" and such.  But this is a keeper. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  17:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as others but it should also have a new title as per JPD. Something like "BFI's 50 ..."--Deville (Talk) 17:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Minor list and probable copyright violation.  If it's so important the issuing group should have it on its webpage.  Put a link to that list on a relevant article.Tombride 18:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename. We've got lots of similar lists, but the name has to change to avoid sounding like advocacy (The BFI list of 50...). We can list the films in the order they do without any copyright worries. ProhibitOnions 21:16, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete These lists will multiply out of control if we don't delete them. ReeseM 23:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Interesting list from notable organisation. Capitalistroadster 02:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and Rename per ProhibitOnions. Haikupoet 02:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename per JJ and Prohibit. Joe 05:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - as the event itself is notable, and sponsored by the BFI, a major organisation, there's definitely an article here. However, as the list itself is on the BFI's website, and linked to in the article, would anyone object to just keeping the top ten, and getting rid of the rest of the list to avoid any possible copyright issue?  If that's done, I'll change to keep.    Proto    ||    type    08:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete This is a copyvio as it repeats opinion and duplicates judgements made in arranging information. Bhoeble 12:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep if its good enough for the BFI its good enough for me. Jcuk 00:41, 30 March 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.