Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Films considered the worst ever (fifth nomination)


 * 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 of the debate was Keep. Ok seriously, gang. The consensus here is that this large, well written article, which has survived 4 prior AfDs needs to stay. I think at this point there is not much point in nominating it again. -- + + Lar: t/c 05:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Films considered the worst ever (fifth nomination)
This AfD brought this article to my attention. Consensus reviews are, by their very nature, point of view, and although "mass opinion" may deem these movies awful (and I don't necessarily disagree), the simple fact that a majority holds an opinion does not, by its very nature, render that opinion an objective fact. Although this article is well-written, it is nevertheless subjective opinion and thus merits deletion. &mdash; WCityMike (T  &dArr; plz reply HERE (why?) &dArr;  18:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep &mdash; Same arguments as in the prior AfD nominations for this page. &mdash; RJH (talk) 19:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I could only find this, so renamed it to "(second nomination)". Please provide links if there's more. &mdash; WCityMike (T  &dArr; plz reply HERE  (why?) &dArr; 
 * Comment Articles for deletion/List of films that have been considered the worst ever. See also the opposite of this article, Films that have been considered the greatest ever. Шизомби 20:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Going through the history, it had also briefly been listed for VFD August 23 2005, and then had previously been listed for VFD May 30 2004 and closed June 3, 2004 and prior to that listed for VFD August 31, 2003 and closed Sept 27, 2003.  Not sure how to find the links for the VFD pages. Шизомби 21:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Question &mdash; Is there a template that could be added to the talk page of frequent AfD targets regarding the viability of such proposals? Thanks. &mdash; RJH (talk) 21:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Policy suggestion Alternatively, how about a policy that after surviving AfD, an article cannot be renominated within two years? Matchups 20:16, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep While there are lists, articles, books, etc. elsewhere about the "worst films ever" WP can't have an article by such a title (unless it were about one of those specific books), so the title seems a reasonable way to address the topic in an encyclopedic way.  The criteria for inclusion seems narrowly written enough so that wikipedians don't simply add their own most hated movies. Шизомби 19:08, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * comment The way you've phrased your statement, your argument seems to be that Wikipedia should have an article about it because there are lists, articles, books, etc. elsewhere about the "worst films ever." I disagree. &mdash; WCityMike (T  &dArr; plz reply HERE  (why?) &dArr;  19:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep for pretty much the same reason as the last list. This has been the subject of much debate in the past but the evolution of this meant that all entries in this list are well referenced and meet numerous criteria. Would not agree that it is subjective. Ydam 20:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Aside from this being a fine list, isn't it apparent that, after having survived FOUR AfD debates, that the consensus is to allow the article to remain on WP? -- Kicking222 22:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * comment Not that it changed my opinion of the article's NPOV status, you'll note from above that the article's history of AfD nominations was dug up after the article was nominated &mdash; and none but one have been documented on the article's talk page. &mdash; WCityMike (T  &dArr; plz reply HERE (why?) &dArr;  23:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Although I've taken care of that now. &mdash; WCityMike (T  &dArr; plz reply HERE (why?) &dArr;  23:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep referenced, intelligent way of approaching a very notable concept (how many times have you heard "Worst movie ever!"?) CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 22:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep- I agree with the sentement that this is well-written, has survived numerous attempts to delete it before, and the idea that because there are books devoted to this proves that a list like this can be considered academic in nature. After all, there are pop-culture encyclopedias (a fact that seems lost on those who want to delete pop culture references from Wiki...) Coyote42 22:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a notable subject and is handled in an encyclopedic manner. Maxamegalon2000 03:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep (again): best ever and worst ever need to be there. Calwatch 06:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, explained well and majority opinions. Vore  tus   the   Benevolent  15:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a very notable subject that has engrained itself into society. HighInBC 15:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep A great deal of effort has been made to make this article well-referenced and NPOV (see History and Talk pages). - 164.58.90.94 19:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC) (User: CNichols - signature cookie failing.)
 * Delete. Unencyclopedic, original research, etc.  As well written as it may be, it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Peyna 01:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is a (mostly) very well-referenced article, and a notable concept/topic. I've used this page before and found it reliable and interesting. The nominator was well-intentioned, but from now on, please don't nominate this. It's not going to go away. Grand  master  ka  05:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. AdamDobay 10:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Useful, well-written and cited article. These nominations are useless -- Reflex Reaction  ( talk )&bull; 16:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep but needs work to make it more "encyclopedic" Gil-Galad 7 June 2006
 * Keep - enough is enough. Metamagician3000 09:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep actually reasonaly well referenced. Seems to have avoided the growth of listcruft that limits Movies considered the best ever.  Eluchil404 06:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Well written article, plenty of references and very notable in regards to films.--Cini 13:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep All claims are backed up by verifiable evidence. EVula 19:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, obviously. --Guinnog 19:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep If there's no problem with "best ever," there's no reason to zap this one--Ed Wood 20:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per pretty much absolutely everyone. Driller thriller 00:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - see my vote in Articles for deletion/List of video games considered the worst ever (second nomination) --Philo 04:45, 9 June 2006 (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.