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. -
Mailer Diablo 19:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete list with incredibly broad and therefore useless name. List explanation does not match list name.
Doczilla 09:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete - subjective listcruft.
MER-C 10:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete - irretrievably POV in concept and execution.
MoreschiDeletion! 17:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete listcruft
JuJube 23:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep Examine the entries; the appropriateness, selectivityt, and significance of all of them justifies the list. One can say Listcruft about any list. I am not sure what Moreschi means by POV. Making films devoted in a significant way about childhood is a POV? Or is it thinkingthem important enough to collect the POV. the basis of selection is defined by the actual listDGG 02:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete The basis of selction for a list needs to be clear, unambiguous, and relevant. There are no criteria given for deciding if the presentation of chilhood in a particular film is important enough to include it on the list. And I don't see the possibility of coming up with any. Thus the list is inherently POV.
Eluchil404 12:40, 12 January 2007 (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.