Deletion of List of film sequels considered better than the original

Comment: per Opabina regalis and Jammo; imdb is not a , suffering from miniscule sample size and systemic bias
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: unmaintainable |OR, would require constant supervision to remain accurate. Also the opinions are not necessarily uniform or reflective of a broader social consensus, given that registered IMDb users would probably be more critical and analytical of the technical and other aspects of films than the Man on the Clapham omnibus|bloke on the Bondi tram. In other words - inherently |POV
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:NPOV)

Comment: fails . Possibly , as well
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:NOR||WP:NPOV)

Comment: IMO, this article is inherently POV and violates  because the act of choosing to assess a pair of films for inclusion in the list is arbitrarily decided by the editor. It isn't an analysis process carried out by a verifiable third party that is then cited in WP. So however careful the editors are, it will always fail . The article's current POV crowbarring in of films that do not fit the alleged selection criteria is just the icing on the cake. If it existed as "List of films considered by someone reliable and verifiable to be better..." then it would be a different story. But it isn't
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:NOR||WP:NOR)

Comment: POV and 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)