The result was Delete as unsourvced and possibly PoV. However, I will restore and userfy to anyone who asks and expressesd the intent to source this. A similar list with sources demonstrzting which films actually were top-grossing, and at least sourcing multiple favorable reveiws for "critically aclaimed" films might well be acceptable. Anyone who wants to use this as the basis for that is welcome to do so. DES (talk) 23:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Possibly violates WP:NOT as being 'original research'; this was the assertion of the editor who nominated this article for speedy deletion using Template:db with the following accompanying reason "serves no real purpose except being a 'list' - nothing more. Most of the content looks like Original Research (no sources)". I bring this here as it is inappropriate to delete under speedy criteria and I express no opinion about its suitability for inclusion in Wikipedia. User:Ceyockey ( talk to me) 02:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete as unsourvced and possibly PoV. However, I will restore and userfy to anyone who asks and expressesd the intent to source this. A similar list with sources demonstrzting which films actually were top-grossing, and at least sourcing multiple favorable reveiws for "critically aclaimed" films might well be acceptable. Anyone who wants to use this as the basis for that is welcome to do so. DES (talk) 23:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Possibly violates WP:NOT as being 'original research'; this was the assertion of the editor who nominated this article for speedy deletion using Template:db with the following accompanying reason "serves no real purpose except being a 'list' - nothing more. Most of the content looks like Original Research (no sources)". I bring this here as it is inappropriate to delete under speedy criteria and I express no opinion about its suitability for inclusion in Wikipedia. User:Ceyockey ( talk to me) 02:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC) reply