Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/British Film Institute list of the 50 films you should see by the age of 14 (second 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 by strong consensus. Bearian (talk) 00:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

British Film Institute list of the 50 films you should see by the age of 14

Non-notable list, Copyvio, see first nomination for more details. Tavix (talk) 03:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is an excellent list of films. If we can keep 100 Greatest British Television Programmes, then we can keep this. If there is no copy violation there, then there is no copy violation here either. Cheers 03:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Seriously guys. Wikipedia has enough crap lists, and this isn't one of them. I'd say bring back the full list like the top 100 TV. ChiragPatnaik (talk) 05:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Has only one reference, which is a direct reproduction of the list instead of any sort of commentary on it or journalistic discussion of it. It would almost appear, in fact, that this Wikipedia article is about the Daily Mail article that's given as a reference. I'll note that the Daily Mail article doesn't even mention the British Film Institute, it says this list is from a "panel of experts." Brilliant Pebble (talk) 03:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It IS a BFI List. See Children get must-see movie list . I've added the BBC ref to the article.ChiragPatnaik (talk) 05:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article, when I reviewed it, didn't have that link. When I looked the article over, the sole link was to a Daily Mail article which, as I said, didn't even mention the BFI. However, even the BBC article that has been added says: "The 50 films were whittled down to a top 10". This says to me that the 50-item list was an interim thing, and therefore may not be particularly notable. I'm noticing - based on the dates of the articles - that there appears to have been a two-week spate of newspaper articles about this, which immediately died down, as if they were polishing up a BFI press release and putting it out. Brilliant Pebble (talk) 19:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article is not a copyright violation, as it does not reprint the list. On the other hand, I can't say this list is very notable. It's pretty much hidden on the BFI's own web site, which suggests that even they don't consider it of great importance. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having a bad search engine and horrible nav structure, doesn't mean it is hidden. It is covered by the BBC as noted above.

Keep A list from a notable organization and it's been dealt with in mainstream news sources. See the varied Category:AFI 100 Years series for similar.--T. Anthony (talk) 07:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 07:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is enough significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. Davewild (talk) 07:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep and improve by removing unsourced material and adding inline citations to make verification of facts easier. Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:37, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep per first AFD. Canadian Actor Expert (talk) 12:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I see nothing different to change my original opinion in the 2006 AFD, although I would still like to see some additional commentary added. 23skidoo (talk) 12:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there may be a slight expandability problem here, but the list itself is notable (as are similar BFI and AFI lists). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to British Film Institute. Doesn't seem much else to say about it than what is already there, even when fixed up with proper sources. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The avtul list could be added, not being copyvio. The proof of that is that multiple UK newspapers published it. DGG (talk) 08:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. Skin Flautist (talk) 13:04, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets the notability guidelines. RMHED (talk) 14:26, 29 July 2008 (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.