Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Films considered the greatest ever

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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Films considered the greatest ever

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. Yes, there are sources for some of the material, but it still violates NPOV at the core. This is hardly encyclopedic material anyhow. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 08:05, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: has this already been discussed, as Films that have been considered the greatest ever? --Shirt58 (talk) 09:58, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per earlier discussion. It indicates winners of various film surveys. Cjc13 (talk) 14:22, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obviously this should be kept, this is not POV, it it based on POV but has a strong basis in scholarly debate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.168.169.134 (talk) 23:56, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The encyclopedic nature of this article has been questioned before, and I agree that it has degraded into something that violates NPOV. But I believe that it still can serve a valid purpose, if some criteria is established for what belongs on the list. If the article limits itself to only those films that have been #1 in a list of the greatest movies (separated by genre or country), there should be no problem providing references to back that up. Lately, people have been adding movies based on Academy Awards, or their rating at Rotten Tomatoes, which has diluted the list. There are other articles for those sources anyway. If the list is cleaned up sufficiently, it should be kept. Fortdj33 (talk) 14:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as long as it is watched so that it doesn't become POV and uses only reliable sources. Jenks24 (talk) 15:10, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your response(s). There are numerous people watching this list, yet it still fails to adhere to our NPOV policy. Personally, I feel that this list is inherently geared towards a certain point of view, so this will always be a problem no matter how many watchful eyes it has. What steps do those of you who have responded with "keep" think should be taken in order to make this list compliant? JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 15:17, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hmmm. Well by looking at the talk page it seems to me that it used to be semi-protected, which would obviously be a positive step (although I'm unsure why the semi-protection was removed). Also I think that many of the films that are listed cite Rotten Tomatoes and other similar websites as their reference, but I don't think it is a valid reference and it makes the article more cluttered (and someone actually used in their edit summary If Rotten Tomatoes scores can count. Then I see no problem with the Incredibles being added. Even if it wasn't a vote). But yeah I agree this would be a tough article to maintain. Jenks24 (talk) 16:57, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I am the one that said that. Because somebody has removed the Incredibles on there, I removed it saying the Dark Knight is the highest rated comic book based movie on Rotten Tomatoes. (Which is not true anyway) But somebody did state in their edit summary that adding Rotten Tomatoes score is ok. So from what it seems is that The Incredibles never needed to be removed if true. Besides comedy does have one of those as well. Jhenderson777 (talk) 23:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep NPOV means that an editor should avoid making an article based his or her own point of view. On the other hand, the published points of view of other persons, documented in independent and reliable sources (which this one is), are notable, whether it's the summary of a Gallup poll, a well-known quote about a person's observation, or a survey of film critics. It's the difference between original research, and summarizing the research of a published author. Mandsford 18:47, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We are not proclaiming these films to be the greatest ever, we are just stating that they have been considered the greatest ever by noteworthy sources. This article could use some more organization and less trivia, but there's nothing wrong with its scope and premise as this is a notable topic in itself. Them From Space 23:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The only problem with this article is it have a few sources and rankings from IMDb which can be considered unreliable. But other than that it serves it's purpose to what it's about. Jhenderson777 (talk) 23:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm a little surprised by the consensus developing to keep. This article really does seem blatantly "unencyclopedic". What's next Best underwear ever? Most awesome Power Ranger? The title suggests this article covers pure critique. I don't think WP is meant to be a repository for this kind of material. NickCT (talk) 03:56, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is the repository for a lot of different things, not all of which appeal to everyone. Believe it or not, entire books have been written about films considered to be "classic", so it's not that far-fetched. I guess that if people felt the same way about Hanes with stretch band that they do about Casablanca and Battleship Potemkin, there might be such a "what's next" list. Mandsford 12:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Mandsford - " entire books have been written about films considered to be "classic", Entire books have been written about a lot of stuff that doesn't belong on Wikipedia.

"not all of which appeal to everyone." - WP is not a repository for stuff that simply appeals to people. If it was, there would be more pornography.

Wikipedia is a repository for facts and information in articles that are encyclopedic in the same sense that Britanica is encyclopedic. The article in question simply doesn't cut mustard. NickCT (talk) 12:47, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps someone will agree with you. Mandsford 13:48, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah.... that'll be the day. Mandsford takes the tone of someone happy to eschew debate and nestle in the bosom of an incorrect majority.

I think JB confused things a little when he complained this article had NPOV issues. WP can certainly present criticism in a NPOV, so I'm not sure that's an issue here. I think the primary issues here are that WP is not an indiscriminate collection of information and that WP is not a depository for opinion pieces. NickCT (talk) 14:34, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Nestle in the bosom of an incorrect majority"? Geez, thanks for that mental image. Nevertheless, there are few things more boring in an AfD discussion than to watch two people trade comments back and forth in what they imagine to be a battle of wits, so yeah, I eschew that sort of debate. I'm not worried about whether I can get you to agree with me-- my goal in these things is to get several people to agree with something I write, which sometimes happens. You can debate me on my talk page any day of the week, except on Tuesday, I go bowling on Tuesday. Mandsford 19:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I agree. It is boring, and I wouldn't press the point, but I've rarely seen an AfD which is so devoid of reason. Anyway.... enjoy bowling. NickCT (talk) 19:19, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep For a film to be considered the greatest ever is inarguably a big deal, and this is very solidly referenced by our standards. That isn't to say there's not room for improvement, but it's not a candidate for deletion by a long shot. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:16, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Like with the other "Keep" arguments I don't really see how this line of reasoning applies. Of course it's a big deal for a film to be considered the greatest ever. Why does that mean this page should exist? If a film is highly acclaimed, let that be stated on the article devoted solely to that film.

Is it a "big deal" for a monument to be considered the greatest architectural work ever? Should we have a Architectural works considered the greatest ever? This whole thing is silly, and I have yet to hear a cogent argument for why the article in question should exist. NickCT (talk) 17:10, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a big deal because, as the article demonstrates, the topic has been the source of both expert and public scrutiny and debate for at least the past 60 years or so, and likely before that, too. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:49, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, you're missing the point. I'm not arguing that the title of greast film ever is not WP:NOTABLE. Of course it's notable. And sure, there has been a lot of speculation and debate about what the greatest film ever is. That doesn't mean there should be a page devoted solely to that speculation and debate. I mean, there has been a lot of speculation and debate about the existence of aliens. Should we have a page covering the debate? NickCT (talk) 18:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. And we do. See Cosmic pluralism. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:55, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cosmic Pluralism details facts and info about the "Belief in Aliens". It doesn't offer "arguments and critiques for and against the existence of aliens". Films considered the greatest ever offers only critique of what people think is the best film of all time. NickCT (talk) 19:19, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Good grief, obviously. Wikitrueforever (talk) 23:14, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: I'm a little surprised that this article was nominated for deletion. This article is "encyclopedic". - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:52, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Can I please add to my comment above that I do think this page needs some considerable improvement however... Wikitrueforever (talk) 22:55, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.