Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dumbest Decisions in Movie History


 * 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.  Singu larity  06:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Dumbest Decisions in Movie History
This is very simple, it just another run of the mill NN list of the month in a popular culture magazine. There is nothing notable about it in the slightest - the only place it is mentioned is in wikipedia mirrors, there are no sources for the list beyond the fact that Total film mentions that such a list was published in a 2004 issue - so even if we accepted that such a list existed - why are we accepting that total film's list is the objective one to follow? how do we up date it from 2004 - by guesswork? Yes it is mentioned in a number of articles - but so what? that just indicates that we need to do the standard prune job on the triva sections of certain articles. Otherwise where do we stop? Do we do the rest of the lists in total film? move onto TV weekly? WP:NOT - wikipedia is not intended to a repository of subjective triva. Fredrick day 18:00, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, non-notable list. Ten Pound Hammer  • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 18:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. This article provides useful and verifiable content to various business and film subgroups. Before this article was created, the 2004 Total Film article about the "dumbest decisions in movie history" was referenced in the following Wikipedia pages:  Reds (film), The Sea-Wolf, Six Days Seven Nights, Carry On films and Police Academy (film series).  I discovered the list in researching references to the Paterson Silk Strike of 1913.  The reference in Reds (film) to the Total Film list conveyed a poignant story about how the message of the movie can get in the way of properly producing the movie. Warren Beatty used the opportunity of making the film in Russia to educate the extras about capitalist exploitation of labor.  Those extras then went on strike and demanded higher wages.  A classic irony.  It made me curious about the other items on Total Film's list.  To my disappointment, there was no ready reference for this list, so I created it.  This is what Wikipedia is about:  a popular source of reference material on all subjects.  I agree that the content of this page is not for everyone.  However, anyone with an interest in learning from the history of really bad mistakes, anyone interested in the business of film making, and anyone with a sense of humor can use it and enjoy it. There is "something notable" in this list, more than the "slightest."  It is a collection of some of the most colossal errors and business misjudgments, topped with a shocking red fashion disaster. It is not true that "the only place it is mentioned is in wikipedia mirrors."  A Google search quickly reveals numerous independent references to the 2004 Total Film list, and I cited several of them.  The content is verifiable, not the least of which by checking the January 2004 issue of Total Film.  Other subjective lists are included in Wikipedia, such as the AFI series of film listings, and any other subjective film awards. That the list is now closed makes verification easier.  If Total Film updates this list, future contributors may edit the page. I am distressed that controversy over this page has led to active removal of the prior references to this list throughout Wikipedia content.  To verify the pre-existing references, readers must now check the history of each referenced page.  That is contrary to the open spirit of Wikipedia.  I ask others to vote to keep this page, respecting that no group should block the collection and sharing of information of interest to other groups.r3 19:05, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It is not true that "the only place it is mentioned is in wikipedia mirrors." A Google search quickly reveals numerous independent references to the 2004 Total Film list, and I cited several of them. no you haven't - every single reference you added was a mirror to wikipedia content - if you think a ebay listing which is a mirror of wikipedia content is a verfiable source, we've (well you) have got a problem. You have not provided any references that are not mirrors (except for a single link that proves the list exists - which nobody doubts) --Fredrick day 19:26, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. The article contains information that is not notable at all:
 * " 10. Anne Heche announced that she was a lesbian shortly after being cast in Six Days Seven Nights. "

Is this important? Is any of it important? It seems more like a gossip page than anything else. I believe that the only reason Rrener wants to keep the page is because he created it. (No offense meant) •Malinaccier•   T / C  19:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Abstain. r3 asked me to comment.  Coincidentally, I ought not to !vote: I have a conflict of interest in that I wrote a compilation list above movies and published it in a reliable source just last week.  Amidst all the sturm und drung after I made a polite suggestion on a few talk pages that a reference to my list be included in the articles of the movies it mentioned (since my list was the first to compile the highest-grossing documentaries going as far back as the history of documentaries, when existing lists only go back to 1982), merely mentioning the list in film articles was rejected on grounds of WP:WEIGHT: it was decided that the calculation was not a notable point of view.  If this reasoning were applied consistently, this would suggest that the list in question shouldn't even be mentioned in the articles r3 refers to, much less have its own article.  Since I could be accused of WP:POINT if I !vote delete, and COI if I !vote keep, I abstain. Separately, I have copyright concerns about this article. THF 19:25, 12 August 2007 (UTC) (clarify 21:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC))
 * Delete. The title itself is POV (what truly constitutes a 'dumb' decision? How could we ever know potential other outcomes?) and thus is subject to problems of verifiability. Counterfactuals are great and all, but the original list also fails notability. Eliz81(talk)(contribs) 19:25, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Not only violates WP:NPOV, is the type of subject that invites editors to add nonsense and further POV. Some may deem it interesting/useful is also not a valid reason per WP:AADD Tendancer 21:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete If those were the nine most interesting on the list, I'm glad I didn't see the other 92. Fails the fictional test of WP:B-O-R-R-R-I-N-G-G Mandsford 21:47, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete No sources that demonstrate that this list is notable.  --Phirazo 22:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, non-notable list from a magazine. --musicpvm 23:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Even if the title wasn't povish, WHAT decisions are we talking about? Budgeting? Casting? Directing? Content? Production in general? Releasing? Companies? Nope, nope, nope; even if it wasn't glaringly a pov, it would still fail for being so darn vague and WP:OR. -WarthogDemon 00:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete I'm strongly opposed to copying any subjective list created by a magazine into an encyclopedia Corpx 06:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Embarrassing junk.  Wasted Time R 22:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 'Delete per several of the above ... and yikes.--JForget 01:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * DeleteViolates NPOV policy, non notable...and get that picture of Sean Connery out of here! Cheers,  Je tL ov e r (talk) 02:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Fervently Strong Delete Violates NPOV policy, while I do find the list amuzing, this is the same junk I get passed to me on Myspace. In my book that makes it trivial and not worthy of any foot notes. So what if it links to notable things, it's nothing short of name dropping.Leonardobonanni 15:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator and everyone above. Crufty nn list. Also note the author of the article has spammed editors he has identified as having past conflicts with the nominator, asking them to comment at this AfD. Sarah 09:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as per the nomination, this is not an encyclopedic type of list. Yamaguchi先生 04:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * 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.