Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of U.S. box office bombs (2nd 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 was No consensus -- JForget 23:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

List of U.S. box office bombs
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Subjective article that is primarily original research, subjective criteria for inclusion, and only one source. It also has no actual list anymore, as they were completely removed during a questioning of copyright issues. In the earlier version with the lists, however, you can see that the entire list is subjectively determined by whoever edited the list. I don't see that such an article, with or without the list, adds any value to Wikipedia at all, nor does it comply with WP:NPOV or WP:V. Collectonian (talk) 02:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletions.   —Collectonian (talk) 02:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * (e/c) Delete per WP:NPOV, "bomb" is a highy POV term. Add to the fact that the list is WP:OR and cites only one source... and you have a list that bombs. Ten Pound Hammer  • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 02:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'd disagree about the term "bomb". It is widely used across all media avenues. - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: I cannot figure out why the list was removed. If the list was there I would say keep, as it is fairly evident what would warrant inclusion on the list.  Without the list itself, there isn't much here, and the title is grossly misleading, thus, delete.  - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * From looking at the talk page, it looks it was removed because it was believed to be lifted from BoxOfficeMojo. Collectonian (talk) 02:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete because a "box office bomb" is not consistent or clear-cut. International distribution and DVD sales are factors, and not all films will have their budgets public.  It'd be better to shape the prose of the article box office bomb to focus on notable examples and their impact. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Indiscriminate list with strong POV and OR. I'm also still suspicious about potential copyright problems with the single source. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 03:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Where is this "indiscriminate list"? You know it was removed, right? - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: I followed the Wikipedia policy on possible copyvio and asked for feedback. See Talk:List of U.S. box office bombs. A copy of the tables are there per Wiki procedure. Personally, the two comments did not satisfy me and I haven't replaced the tables. Then again, no one else must have been convinced either. The lists are indiscriminate because there is no exclusion or inclusion criteria. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 04:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge it into Box office bomb? It's certainly a notable and much discussed concept.  Unfortunately this article seems to think film was invented as a medium in about 1992.Nick mallory (talk) 05:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as references mentioning box office bombs should be relatively easy to find and the topic is noteworthy enough that such a list is worth keeping and expanding. Sincerely, -- Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 17:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep While being named a "bomb" is certainly a bad thing, that doesn't make it unverifiable by a long shot, as both the industry and mainstream press is never shy about calling a bomb a bomb. Indeed one could even say being a bomb is a mark of notability in itself: films like Gigli and Ishtar are certainly more rembered and more widely-known than if they had quietly made modest profits for their creators. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  19:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. The term bomb is too subjective for a neutral article, and the criteria may vary wildly between one "expert" and another. Unmaintainable list, and quite apparently too, if one looks at its history. --Blanchardb- Me  MyEarsMyMouth-timed 21:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep If you're wondering where the list is, one of the editors gutted the article out of fear of "copyright violations". It's hard to judge the beauty of a skeleton. Mandsford (talk) 23:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Relatively very easy to verify this type of information with readily available WP:V/WP:RS sources. The article just needs a bit of restructuring and sourcing, but not deletion.  Cirt 18:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC).
 * Delete. Per nom.  Someone who would like to start over and try to build an article, feel free.  But there is a major inherent problem here with the subjectiveness of this list and the fact that even before the wipe of the list there weren't any sources that properly describe any of the films as a "bomb."  No one has addressed the concerns of the last AfD, and no one seems interested in doing so.  A properly sourced re-creation would be appropriate IMO.  Mango juice talk 03:51, 6 December 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.