Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of films considered the best (2nd 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. WP:SNOW. postdlf (talk) 17:21, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of films considered the best[edit]

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

A Major ~~COI~~ POV issue waiting to happen. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 21:05, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 21:06, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I fail to see what the "conflict of interest" is. Our standard policies should avert any serious problems with any single poll receiving WP:UNDUE coverage (I have just cut back some of the Sight & Sound stuff that was swamping the article). The article surveys an overwhelming number of different polls utilising many different methodologies, so the debate regarding which films are the greatest has been engaged in at every level (critics, the industry itself, audiences etc) and thus satisfying notability without any shadow of a doubt. While not particularly pretty in some ways I think this article represents Wikipedia at its best i.e. bringing together a huge amount of information and making it digestible for layman readers. Betty Logan (talk) 21:46, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:04, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:SNOWBALL consensus last time. Nominating editor Zppix fails to challenge why this compelling consensus should be overturned. Article meets WP:YESPOV readily by describing significant opinions and providing in-text attribution. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 22:05, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's no reason that I can see to second guess the rather snowy keep from 2012. "A Major COI issue waiting to happen." just doesn't seem to me to be a persuasive rationale. The list is thoroughly referenced, to critics' polls, festivals, review sites and the like. If a "COI" editor from wherever wants to claim that his - or his client's film - is, like, the best ever.... he's going to need a reference or it won't survive, surely. Any spam that makes its way into the article can and should be dealt with at the editing stage, not at Afd. (Looking at Canada, as an example, the section's five titles are either pretty standard or in the case of Wavelength, the outlier, explained and referenced). Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:12, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per previous AFD's. BTW COI with what? MarnetteD|Talk 22:14, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm beginning to think the nominator meant POV when he or she typed COI...? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:19, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The name of the article doesn't sound proper, but I couldn't come up with anything better. The subject matter however very much deserves its own article. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 22:51, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Invalid deletion nomination aside, this article is in really good shape, with lots of third-party refs showing why those films are so highly rated. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:46, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not sure of what the rationale for the nomination is. Although I agree the title of the article is atrocious. Something along the lines of "List of highly rated films" would seem more appropriate. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:14, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So you'd rather delete it than raise a WP:RM to change the title? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:53, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That was my question, too. If you're "Not sure of what the rationale for the nomination is" and you're proposing an alternate title for the list, why then are you !voting to delete? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:54, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The rationale was because its a majorily implied ~~COI~~ POV title. Rename could be an option but the problem is that the article would probably need to be rewritten due to possible ~~COI~~ POV issues. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 13:40, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So the article -- or list -- would need to be "rewritten" due to possible POV issues? That is to say, POV issues yet to come? Also WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Even swapping the acronym COI for POV, you still haven't managed to come up with a coherent deletion rationale, from what I can see. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:50, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The page reports what various reliable sources have concluded to be the best films made. Likewise, if POV/COI issues appear, they can be dealt with in the article, but that's no reason for pre-emptive deletion. /wiae /tlk 17:00, 16 March 2016 (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.