Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of U.S. box office bombs


 * 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 keep. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihon joe 21:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

List of U.S. box office bombs

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete Unsourced, original research. Most of the budget numbers appear to come from IMDB, where they clearly say "estimated" beside the number. AlistairMcMillan 14:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep: Err ... how do you figure that that these numbers come from IMDB?  Multiple sources are given for the numbers, none of which are from IMDB, and if "estimated" numbers are prima facie unencyclopedic, much US Census demographic info would be out the window on Wikipedia.  I don't see any POV involved, the article is sourced, the basic premise is a well known one, and this is no more original research than me cribbing hockey stats from hockeydb.com to put in player articles.  (Besides which it was eerie realizing that I had paid to see four of the movies on that list.)  RGTraynor 16:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * If you look at the budget numbers for the films starting with "A", I think six out of the nine match the figures listed at IMDB exactly. And aside from Slither, none of the other budget figures are sourced. AlistairMcMillan 16:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * And it isn't the fact that they are estimated that makes them unencyclopedic. It is the fact that they are estimated by IMDB that makes them unencyclopedic.   AlistairMcMillan 16:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The article specifically cites these references:  ; there is nothing in WP:ATT requiring a footnote on every single number when they all are sourced with a general reference, and doing so would look impossibly cluttered.  And ... erm, if the various industry sources agree, isn't that a good thing?  That's like claiming I got demographic information from the World Book Almanac just because it happens to match with the information I got from the US Census website, and furthermore inferring that there was something fishy about it.  As to that, IMDB is a good bit more reliable than Wikipedia ...  RGTraynor 16:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Can you say with any certainty that the figures are all sourced from those links? And was that last bit about IMDB a joke?  At least some of Wikipedia is sourced, who knows where the info on IMDB comes from.  AlistairMcMillan 16:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Starting to sound a bit strident there. If, for instance, you have reason to believe that some of those numbers are not sourced from the sources given, kindly present your evidence.  As far as IMDB goes, it's the acknowledged industry standard, with a paid editorial staff, taking its financial sources from the studios and Variety.  RGTraynor 17:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. Lets start with the first film on the list.  This article says "The Adventures of Baron Munchausen" had a budget of "$40,000,000":
 * * The The Adventures of Baron Munchausen article says $46.6 million
 * * IMDB says $46,630,000
 * * BoxOfficeMojo says $46.63 million
 * * TheNumbers says nothing about the budget.
 * So, where does this List article get the budget number? AlistairMcMillan 17:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It isn't a huge stretch to suggest that BoxOfficeMojo, the explicit reference given in the article, might very well be the source. So the numbers don't square?  Correct it then; that's what we come to Wikipedia to do, correct typos and errors we find.  Myself, given that the article is over three years old and has had many editors, I wouldn't venture to suggest when or by whom that particular figure was added, and in any event this is a discussion better suited for the article's talk page.  RGTraynor 18:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The list would actually be ok if we were given some evidence for why films like Waterworld were considered bombs. Making less than the budget doesn't necessarily mean the film is a bomb. Usedup 16:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete; arbitrary, violates WP:NOR --Mhking 16:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep; certainly not arbitrary, a box office bomb makes at the box office less than the cost of the film. As simple as that. --FateClub 18:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Original research, listcruft. Artw 18:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Not really, it is an accepted term, seeBox office bomb. This would be a list of films that fit the term. --FateClub 19:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * If only the definition of "box office bomb" in the article of the same name was referenced... AlistairMcMillan 21:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, there are now seven links referencing the name, including ones from the Washington Post, Cineaste Magazine, Fox News, the Associated Press and the Wikitionary article. Those links I got from the first page worth of Google hits; the second one includes one from producer Joss Whedon, cinema review umbrella website rottentomatoes.com, netscape.com's front-end headlines, and the official website for the Razzies.  Can we just agree that this well-known term means what it actually means, or do we need to hammer through another half-dozen reliable sources for nothing more than the sake of argument? RGTraynor 13:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep, however the article needs to have a source given regarding the definition of "bomb" otherwise it could be interpreted as Original Research if the article just out and says "a film is considered a bomb if it is etc etc". 23skidoo 19:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Or a link to Box office bomb --FateClub 19:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete This has the same problems as the deleted List of military routs; "bomb" like "rout" is too arbitrary and subjective, and there are far too many potential members for this list, making a comprehensive or even representative list impossible. Djcastel 20:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: The term isn't in the least degree subjective or arbitrary:  did the film fail to recoup its budget?  Since budgetary and box office figures are only generally available for films released through major distributors, the list is certainly finite and a representative one (demonstrably) possible.  RGTraynor 13:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Without reliable sources (and "estimated" budgets from IMDB are not reliable) how do you determine whether a film failed to recoup its budget? AlistairMcMillan 21:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * There are reliable souces, such as film news sources, entertainment news sources and business news sources. --FateClub 19:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep: I double-checked these numbers with www.boxofficemojo.com and they check out. As for this claim that they numbers come from IMDB, this is simply not true. Deleting this article simply because populist editors are mad that some of their favorite films are on this list is POV and flies in the face of Wiki's objectivity. The reason why some people here want to delete this page is because they think it's too negative. What's next? Are we supposed to delete the Nazi wiki page because it puts Germany in a negative light? Should we delete the penis wiki page because it might offend conservative people? Sorry... but box office bombs/flops are a known phenomena in the world of the moviegoing public. It deserves research like anything else in the world. Deleting this page is simply censorship from people who don't like to face the brutal reality that some business enterprises, like movies, are failures. It's not a moral judgment but a financial reality. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.9.103.143 (talk • contribs) 07:06, March 25, 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep; This is ((for the most part)) based on box office earnings and an overall consensus. Films like Waterworld and The Island ((for example)) are considered "bombs" both in gross and reception.


 * And who gains from this article ((other than wikipedians?)) Imho, there is no, there is no POV, enough evidience is provided and 100% of the flims listed here are on dozens of sites listing "officlal" box office "bombs." other than IMDB! User:Wickedxjade 11:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. I have heard two issues that are relevant for deletion: (1) the source of the figures, and (2) the arbitrary inclusion threshold.  1: So, we should make sure the figures are correct and source them.  I see no reason to believe that this cannot be achieved.  2: A box office failure is one that fails to recoup expenses.  What makes one movie a bomb and another merely a failure may be a bit subjective, but it seems like the list could just set an arbitrary threshold, like "Gross < 30% of budget, or Gross less than budget by at least $10 million" that would pretty much accurately sum up the contents.  Exceptions could be included if they were described in sources as bombs.  Yes, this article needs some cleanup, but it's interesting, it's relevant, it's an appropriate topic, and it's a good start.  No real reason to delete here.  Mango juice talk 20:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * "...it seems like the list could just set an arbitrary threshold..." Are you serious?  So basically you want to create an article "List of films that Wikipedia thinks qualify as U.S. box office bombs"?  Please read WP:ATT.  AlistairMcMillan 20:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That would not be necessary, there are many souces that describe such Box Office Bombs. --FateClub 19:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep but Fix- Seems to me that there should be an article explaining what a box office bomb is, but don't put a list, because that can be considered one person's opinion, and not very encyclopedia like.
 * There is an article that explains what a box office bomb is and we are not voting to delete it, only to delete the list of U.S. box office bombs, according to the general-accepted definition, thus not a matter of a wikipedia user's opinion but rather of the experts on the subject. --FateClub 01:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Please cite the "generally accepted definition". AlistairMcMillan 03:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It's been done many times over, or was before you "edited" out every source given in the Box office bombs article. It is acting in extremely poor faith to demand a definition, then to demand the definition be sourced, then to edit out every source demonstrating that the term is in vogue and demanding all over again that the term be sourced.  At the least this is now in violation of WP:POINT.  RGTraynor 09:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Please point to the cite that defines "box office bomb". None of your cites do.  They give examples of box office bombs, but that isn't the same as a definition.  AlistairMcMillan 13:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * "Studios expect that a film's "domestic" (which the film industry defines as the United States and Canada)-- as well as the overseas-- box office gross will exceed production costs. If it recoups this cost, then it can be considered a success; otherwise, if it fails by a significant margin (usually 10% short or more), then it is often referred to as a box office bomb" --FateClub 16:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Beyond which this is getting tendentious. There comes a point in most AfDs where the debate has run its course.  This is one.  You've failed to even elicit a majority for your view, never mind a consensus to delete.  Continuing to hammer that no list can be held valid unless it is based on a rigidly formulaic definition (a POV refuted, as I've mentioned elsewhere, by the numerous racially-based lists) has failed to spur an avalanche of "OMG, you're right, I must change my vote!" responses.  In your shoes, I'd consider losing gracefully and moving on.  RGTraynor 17:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Funny. I'm assuming you are aware that that eBay page is a mirror of a Wikipedia article.  One that was deleted about six months ago.  Articles for deletion/List of films generating losses  AlistairMcMillan 17:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * As far as a formal definition goes I am having trouble finding one. However, all sources assume the term is already understoond as being applied to a money-losing film such as "for a film to lose money" (Yahoo), which is the industry and commonly accepted definition.
 * The term is not original research, the nominator's second of two arguments. The term is used widely, for example by The Michigan Daily, The Chicago Tribune, Yale Daily News and CNN as well as in specialized sites such as RottenTomatoes.com and BoxOfficeMojo.com.
 * A Box Office Bomb is of major importance, not only in the lives of the film stars but also in the performance of big studios and their parent companies such as News Corp and Disney. --FateClub 19:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

No one is saying the term is original research. If I thought the term was original research I'd have nominated the "Box office bomb" article for deletion. This list of films is original research. We are taking the budget and revenue figures, comparing them and saying "these films are bombs". We aren't referencing other people that say these films are bombs, Wikipedia is saying that. Therefore original research. AlistairMcMillan 19:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC) And you think there is no difference between "money-losing movie" and "box office bomb"? AlistairMcMillan 20:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * In that case we got sidetracked in the previous thread. If the industry definition of Box Office Bomb is a money-losing film and it is generally understood (as all these sources would suggest) then this is a list of films that fit the industry definition of Box Office Bomb or the generally accepted definition of Box Office Bomb (which is in fact the same, in any case). Then such list is not original research, as it would be if the list included non-money losing films. --FateClub 20:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I expect that very few lists on Wikipedia work that way; a POV-ridden opinion poll doesn't magically cease to be one just because someone who wasn't on Wikipedia made it up. I'd much rather take a list compiled from factual, reliable sources ... like this one.  That being said, Mr. McMillan's interpretation of WP:NOR is completely in error, if a common mistake.  "Original research" as policy defines it is not "anything an editor compiles."  The specific criteria valid here is "It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source."  A money-losing movie is value-neutral, and the facts presented are attributed to reputable sources. RGTraynor 20:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I certainly agree, most figures lack sources and that is the issue, and one that most of us (if not all) agree upon. Then a {[fact}} should be added instead of getting rid of the entire article. As this is valuable information (for the industry and from the financial point of view). --FateClub 20:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It is not what I think, but what the industry, the general population and financial experts have determined what it is. --FateClub 21:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete The list itself is clearly original research - it gives an analysis beyond mathematical calculations and logical deduction. The calculation of the percentage is logic, but stating a picture is a box office bomb because of that is not. Therefore, every entry in this list must have a source explicitly stating that the picture was a box office bomb. I suggest that some valiant editors with knowledge of the subject add references to as many entries as possible, and delete the others. If no entries are sourced, delete the article. --User:Krator (t c) 20:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * If "no entries are sourced, delete the article"? Well Mad City is sourced as well as the entire "A" section. I think we are confusing the term original research, Box Office Bomb is not a term made up by a wikipedian, neither is the criteria of inclusion. --FateClub 21:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

'''No one has ever said the term is original research. Creating a list of films based solely on comparing budget and revenue is original research.''' AlistairMcMillan 23:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * How does that difer on how other Wikipedia lists have been created? --FateClub 23:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:ATT. AlistairMcMillan 23:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I will do so, a bit every day until I read it all. Now could you answer the question, please? --FateClub 23:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I would love to answer your question but I just don't know what to say. I'm sure I've said it already a number of times.  Most "List of" articles aren't based on an editor comparing two data points and drawing a conclusion from them.  And any that are should either be deleted, or be re-written so that they are just presenting conclusions drawn by someone else, who we can cite.  AlistairMcMillan 03:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Aha ... now there's the rub. Fair enough.  Would you mind explaining to us what conclusion you fancy the creator of this article has drawn?  Other than, of course, that the films listed all lost money, but that's no more "original research" than claiming that (X-2X) results in a number lower than X.  RGTraynor 13:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That "The Adventures of Baron Münchhausen", "The Adventures of Pluto Nash", "The Alamo", "Alexander", etc are all "US box office bombs". We are saying all these films are bombs because "revenue < budget".  That is our analysis.  AlistairMcMillan 15:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no other conclusion to take, it is not profound analysis, just revenue < budget. Otherwise, most lists, for example List of Americans would be original research, place of birth = America. That is indeed a comparison. In fact all lists would be original reseach under that premise, other than the ones that are verbatim copies (such as Forbes list of billionaires). If that is the case, then nominate all those articles as a group, including Lists of Irish-Americans. There is no reference with the already produced list in question, wikipedians put it together by comparing country of origin = Ireland, it's all about comparisons. That is our analysis. And how about List of computer system manufacturers, analysis: Product manufactured = computer systems. And List of prizes, medals, and awards for women in science, analysis: Gender of awardee = female. --FateClub 16:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Good luck. I've already made that argument to little effect. RGTraynor 17:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * So if a film costs $5,000,000 to make and only takes in $4,999,999 then it is a "bomb"? How about if it only takes in $4,000,000, or $3,500,000?  Is it still a bomb then?  AlistairMcMillan 18:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm done; life's too short. We've made our arguments, you've made yours, you're not convincing us of a thing and plainly we're convincing you of nothing.  I'm quite comfy with leaving this for the closing admin to sort out without any more back-and-forth.  RGTraynor 18:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Compiling a list is not considered OR typically. We have many lists like this. They are valuable and interesting. ike9898 15:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article is clearly sourced.  "Listcruft" is an argument I won't even bother to counter.  As for OR, this list is no more original research than a list of integers smaller than 50.  The list may be incomplete, but it is not OR.  RGTraynor's definition and arguments are convincing.  -- Black Falcon 21:24, 1 April 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.