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. MBisanz ^talk 15:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greatest Movie Performances[edit]

Greatest Movie Performances (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Delete for being an unnecessary list. This page is subjective (at best). If there is a need for mentioning this kind of accolades, it should be dealt with on the page of each actor Arbiteroftruth (talk) 17:28, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per my reasoning in the PROD. Just curious - why was the PROD not sufficient for deletion if this PROD has not been disputed? Redfarmer (talk) 17:30, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename, or merge. I missed the link. Could it be integrated into a larger article rather than an article of its own? Redfarmer (talk) 17:59, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename (or put external link in magazine article). The reference at the bottom which you probably overlooked points to http://www.filmsite.org/100greatperformances4.html which says it's a list by Premiere Magazine, which is a very notable magazine from what I can see, which could imply their opinion is worthy of an article too. - Mgm|^(talk) 17:48, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can it be renamed i started the page, sorry for the fuss, i spent an hour creating it and 5 seconds after i did someone wanted to get rid of it. i signed up to wikipedia for this purpose, its a valid page as i was searching for it and hence was inspired, if u dont like it, why dont u make it better or let it be, it doesnt compromise the integrity of wiki --AJHYNES (talk) 18:04, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Please read WP:NOHARM. JuJube (talk) 22:47, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I know what MGM is saying, but it doesn't really contribute anything important to the wiki. TopGearFreak 18:15, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you elaborate? How does it not contribute to anything important to the wiki if it is referenced from a major magazine? Redfarmer (talk) 18:17, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I do not doubt the notability of the source, or even the truthfullness of the list. However, do we really want a list of this sort in Wikipedia? Do we want to include every list published by every notable publication? I do not agree that the opinion of every notable magazine should have an article in Wikipedia. I agree that the source is notable and verifiable, but the content of the list is still subjective, and even if that were not the case, Wikipedia should not include every list that every notable magazine publishes. It adds nothing to Wikipedia, unless someone can provide evidence that this list is notable in the same way a major award, such as an Emmy or a Grammy is notable. Theseeker4 (talk) 18:23, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- I agree with what Theseeker4 said. Wikipedia is not a list farm. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 18:54, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - list is copy of a list produced by some other publication, with no assertion of notability of the list itself. With no real intro and without proper credits to the source, it also violates WP:NPOV, as "greatest movie performances" are a matter of opinion.--Boffob (talk) 18:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Delete This needs to be taken down as a Userfy. I understand that this a first time contribution by a new editor; and I think I see where this is going-- i.e., that the editor would look for various occasions where publications have made lists of greatest movie performances. This one got off to a bad start, which I attribute to being new to the site more than anything. It was eventually established that this list was not the author's own opinion, but rather something that had been on a list of 100 performances on www.filmsite.org; I can see where one could make a summary of various attempts to rate great movie performances, although I think it would be limited to cursory information and a link that could be followed, such as "filmsite.org's survery in _____ rated Peter O'Toole's portrayal of Lawrence of Arabia as the greatest performance, based on a survey of _____". Although at first blush, this may seem to be improper, I'd point out that this type of comparison is done all the time in those college football articles that document who's ranked where on AP, USA Today, New York Times, etc, etc.; there's no reason that a survey of critics wouldn't fall in the same category as a survey of sportwriters or fotball coaches. Under no circumstances are we allowed to provide "original synthesis" (such as averaging Peter O'Toole's ranking in 10 polls vs. Marlon Brando's average). Mandsford (talk) 18:45, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. One person's opinion of who is the greatest is not welcome here. Tavix (talk) 19:10, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not one person's opinion; it's the opinion of an independently notable magazine. Redfarmer (talk) 19:16, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • And who do you think wrote the magazine article? Tavix (talk) 20:29, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And the fact that we don't know the answer to that question is a good point in favor of a delete. As other editors have done some digging into the source cited by the new author, it's been established that this is from the April 2006 issue of Premiere magazine. It's irrelevant whether it was one person's opinion, or the collective opinions of several of the people on Premiere's editorial staff; and it's irrelevant whether Premiere is a notable magazine. What does seem clear is that this isn't an independent survey, like the American Film Institute sometimes does. What little context that I can find is that it was, indeed, the magazine's staff, as distilled by the person in charge of the article: "PREMIERE's April 2006 issue ranks the best performances in movie history. They made us laugh; they made us cry. And when you read some of our choices, you might laugh or cry, too. But we're betting we nailed most of your favorites. Click below to read the list, check out the editors' picks for the additional performances that didn't quite make the top 100, and enter to win DVDs of the top ten movies." Mandsford (talk) 21:06, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• What are you trying to get at? The fact of the matter is it is the opinion of a select number of people. Whether it actually is one person or a magazine, it's all just opinion. Wikipedia shouldn't be a dumping places for people's opinions (however many people it my be). Tavix (talk) 22:55, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• We have a similar list here. Salih (talk) 18:14, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Where shall I start. First, no context given, making this appear like pure POV. Then if you read the fine print you see the list is sourced from somewhere else, which in turn is taken from somewhere else! Forget it. 23skidoo (talk) 23:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Of no encyclopedic value whatsoever. Besides, they didn't mention a truly great performance: Ann-Margret in Kitten with a Whip (wow - now that's acting!) Ecoleetage (talk) 03:12, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Any list that doesn't have William Shatner's performance in Airplane 2 is not worth having on WP. Oh, and it breaks WP:OR too... 08:08, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
• Delete an appropriate name for this article would be something like Premiere Magazine's list of Greatest Movie Performances and would be notable if that list had recieved multiple significant coverage from reliable sources that are independent of Premiere Magazine, which I see no evidence of. Duffbeerforme (talk) 12:37, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete don't feel good enough to make a joke here. Ultimately, this is just an article published by some magazine. JuJube (talk) 22:47, 28 November 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.