Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of books considered the worst


 * 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. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 10:11, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

List of books considered the worst

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Articles for deletion/List of novels considered the greatest was recently deleted. This one remains, arguably, even more trivial, failing WP:LISTN/WP:LSC. If kept, this needs major cleanup due to unclear inclusion criteria (" cited by many notable critics" -> some entries have only one ref, who is a "notable critic" here, etc.). The multi-ref entries are not always better; for example, The Four Streets is here because a single reviewer called it "the worst novel I've read in 10 years" (other critical reviews do not use adjective "the worst"). This very much is a list of books that received some negative reviews and in which at least one reviewer used the adjective "worst". On the other hand, if there is consensus to delete, it would be good to merge referenced content to 'reception' section about various books. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 10:49, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Lists. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  10:49, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep this article is much more in-line with existing reception lists than the deleted article, which was extremely short and barely referenced. Most of the problems could be fixed with heavy cleanup and an establishment of a minimum number of notable reviews/critiques (maybe 3?) and also a requirement that there are few or no notable positive reviews. I also support a name change to “…notable for negative reception” as it’s more objective. Dronebogus (talk) 11:46, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:15, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete No reason to keep worst when 'greatest' novels was deleted. TheRollBoss001 (talk) 15:00, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFF, not a reason to delete. There are “worst/negative” lists with no positive equivalent; wikipedia articles are based on notability, not on having equal and opposite articles. Dronebogus (talk) 15:35, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete Unlike with films I'm not really seeing compilations from independent reliable sources chronicling bad books. Maybe I'm not looking deeply enough, but unless there's some book equivalent to "Your Movie Sucks" by Roger Ebert or other less notable publications, I can't say that a list of "worst books" meets WP:NLIST. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 15:58, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. NavjotSR (talk) 16:01, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete, or at the very least rename. The pagename is self-evidently unencyclopedic. There's no such thing as "considered the worst" universally. It would have to be based on a preponderance of critical secondary sources. A list based on "the worst" according to one particular prominent critic would be too trivial to keep, and a list based on the views of multiple sources would face some serious issues with source inclusion or exclusion. Maybe if there is a tertiary source that could be used to select the criticism sources, it might be possible to keep with a different pagename, but that's a remote chance. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:21, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Another possibility would be to convert the list page into a category. Doing so would get around the problem of having to determine consistent sourcing, because any reliable primary source calling it "worst" could place a book into the category. It could be something like Category:Books reviewed as "worst" as a subcategory of Category:Books, or it could be some sort of subcategory of Category:Literary criticism. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:47, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep and possibly retitle per . The theme of "the worst book ever" has been addressed in various ways, so I think there's a topic here, and if we adjust the title to something like "books notable for negative reputation" then we can avoid hyperbole. Funnily enough, I did turn up an opinion column about how it's harder to name the worst books than the worst movies, but I think we can manage by cleaning up the existing page somewhat. The American Book Review had a Top 40 Bad Books compilation that was as much as anything about what it means to label a book as "bad". People talk about the worst books of a year , the worst books of a decade , the worst of all time , the worst by great authors , the worst that have been forgotten . I think we just need to put some thought into the criteria for inclusion. Or, as Samuel McChord Crothers wrote in 1909, In compiling a list of the Hundred Worst Books one should carefully consider the necessary limitations of the inquiry . XOR&#39;easter (talk) 21:49, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * For example, we could limit the list to books for which we have secondary sources describing an overwhelmingly negative reception. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 22:02, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Move to Worst book ever written per Dronebogus and others above. Vladimir.copic (talk) 01:57, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * In addition, people's reservations about "worst" being a subjective category don't really matter. The subject has indeed been covered in a wide range of publications, see:
 * Vladimir.copic (talk) 06:59, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Interesting. It's possible we can work out some criteria, the question is whether WP:TNT is needed first. Ping User:ReaderofthePack, User:TompaDompa. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:39, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I haven't looked into the sources (at least not yet—we'll see if I find to do so later), but I'm inclined to agree with : for this to be a valid list topic, there needs to be pretty clear evidence of consensus among the sources about the candidates for the books that might be considered the worst. Otherwise, we're just listing an arbitrary collection of individual opinions. I suspect that doing it analogously to List of films considered the best (as I also suggested at Articles for deletion/List of novels considered the greatest), which in this case would mean listing books that have been voted the worst in notable polls, would not be possible for lack of such polls. Books being considered "the worst" might be something that is best covered at the relevant articles for the books in question (assuming it is WP:DUE, of course). TompaDompa (talk) 18:58, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete (per WP:TNT, if for no other reason). "Worst" in what sense? Literary value? Content? Technique? This list is all over the map. The Virginians is variously labeled Thackeray's worst novel, the worst by a great novelist, and - by a single person only - "the worst novel anyone ever wrote". Ralph 124C 41+ is apparently very poorly written, but has numerous accurately prophetic concepts to its credit. There are bad poems and collections of poems. Mein Kampf is called "the most evil book in history". Also, there is a big difference between books and films: there are a lot fewer of the latter. It is therefore relatively easy for film critics to reach a consensus on which are great and which fall well short of the mark. There is a practically endless supply of bad books, however, so there does not seem to be any agreement in that medium. The writer of the Atlantic article "The Hundred Worst Books" agrees: "It is not my purpose to furnish a list of the Worst Books. I do not think it would be within the power of any one to make a selection that would be universally accepted." Clarityfiend (talk) 04:14, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * But he does go on to say, Though the systematic study of literary failures may be less attractive to some minds than the contemplation of successful efforts, there can be no question as to its usefulness. It stands in the same relation to formal rhetoric that pathology does to physiology. "List of books considered the worst" is probably an unencyclopedic title, but "List of books noteworthy for a negative reputation" is viable (and can make use of much of the same content, if appropriately winnowed). XOR&#39;easter (talk) 14:50, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I am not sure if a list is viable. But it's interesting to note where great book redirects. Now, terrible book doesn't exist... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:41, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * This one is tricky. We could turn into a table like what I have in my userspace for the best of draft, but that may remove context. On the other hand, this context would presumably be in the articles for the books or the author. I suppose that this could be an additional criteria for the page: to be included the book would need to be independently notable. I'm not opposed to this just being a category either, however it would need some sort of guidelines set forth to ensure that people don't add it willy nilly to books that have been criticized for one reason or another but aren't on a "worst of" list. ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79)  (｡◕‿◕｡)  15:58, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Vladimir.copic (talk) 06:59, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Interesting. It's possible we can work out some criteria, the question is whether WP:TNT is needed first. Ping User:ReaderofthePack, User:TompaDompa. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:39, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I haven't looked into the sources (at least not yet—we'll see if I find to do so later), but I'm inclined to agree with : for this to be a valid list topic, there needs to be pretty clear evidence of consensus among the sources about the candidates for the books that might be considered the worst. Otherwise, we're just listing an arbitrary collection of individual opinions. I suspect that doing it analogously to List of films considered the best (as I also suggested at Articles for deletion/List of novels considered the greatest), which in this case would mean listing books that have been voted the worst in notable polls, would not be possible for lack of such polls. Books being considered "the worst" might be something that is best covered at the relevant articles for the books in question (assuming it is WP:DUE, of course). TompaDompa (talk) 18:58, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete (per WP:TNT, if for no other reason). "Worst" in what sense? Literary value? Content? Technique? This list is all over the map. The Virginians is variously labeled Thackeray's worst novel, the worst by a great novelist, and - by a single person only - "the worst novel anyone ever wrote". Ralph 124C 41+ is apparently very poorly written, but has numerous accurately prophetic concepts to its credit. There are bad poems and collections of poems. Mein Kampf is called "the most evil book in history". Also, there is a big difference between books and films: there are a lot fewer of the latter. It is therefore relatively easy for film critics to reach a consensus on which are great and which fall well short of the mark. There is a practically endless supply of bad books, however, so there does not seem to be any agreement in that medium. The writer of the Atlantic article "The Hundred Worst Books" agrees: "It is not my purpose to furnish a list of the Worst Books. I do not think it would be within the power of any one to make a selection that would be universally accepted." Clarityfiend (talk) 04:14, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * But he does go on to say, Though the systematic study of literary failures may be less attractive to some minds than the contemplation of successful efforts, there can be no question as to its usefulness. It stands in the same relation to formal rhetoric that pathology does to physiology. "List of books considered the worst" is probably an unencyclopedic title, but "List of books noteworthy for a negative reputation" is viable (and can make use of much of the same content, if appropriately winnowed). XOR&#39;easter (talk) 14:50, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I am not sure if a list is viable. But it's interesting to note where great book redirects. Now, terrible book doesn't exist... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:41, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * This one is tricky. We could turn into a table like what I have in my userspace for the best of draft, but that may remove context. On the other hand, this context would presumably be in the articles for the books or the author. I suppose that this could be an additional criteria for the page: to be included the book would need to be independently notable. I'm not opposed to this just being a category either, however it would need some sort of guidelines set forth to ensure that people don't add it willy nilly to books that have been criticized for one reason or another but aren't on a "worst of" list. ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79)  (｡◕‿◕｡)  15:58, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I haven't looked into the sources (at least not yet—we'll see if I find to do so later), but I'm inclined to agree with : for this to be a valid list topic, there needs to be pretty clear evidence of consensus among the sources about the candidates for the books that might be considered the worst. Otherwise, we're just listing an arbitrary collection of individual opinions. I suspect that doing it analogously to List of films considered the best (as I also suggested at Articles for deletion/List of novels considered the greatest), which in this case would mean listing books that have been voted the worst in notable polls, would not be possible for lack of such polls. Books being considered "the worst" might be something that is best covered at the relevant articles for the books in question (assuming it is WP:DUE, of course). TompaDompa (talk) 18:58, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete (per WP:TNT, if for no other reason). "Worst" in what sense? Literary value? Content? Technique? This list is all over the map. The Virginians is variously labeled Thackeray's worst novel, the worst by a great novelist, and - by a single person only - "the worst novel anyone ever wrote". Ralph 124C 41+ is apparently very poorly written, but has numerous accurately prophetic concepts to its credit. There are bad poems and collections of poems. Mein Kampf is called "the most evil book in history". Also, there is a big difference between books and films: there are a lot fewer of the latter. It is therefore relatively easy for film critics to reach a consensus on which are great and which fall well short of the mark. There is a practically endless supply of bad books, however, so there does not seem to be any agreement in that medium. The writer of the Atlantic article "The Hundred Worst Books" agrees: "It is not my purpose to furnish a list of the Worst Books. I do not think it would be within the power of any one to make a selection that would be universally accepted." Clarityfiend (talk) 04:14, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * But he does go on to say, Though the systematic study of literary failures may be less attractive to some minds than the contemplation of successful efforts, there can be no question as to its usefulness. It stands in the same relation to formal rhetoric that pathology does to physiology. "List of books considered the worst" is probably an unencyclopedic title, but "List of books noteworthy for a negative reputation" is viable (and can make use of much of the same content, if appropriately winnowed). XOR&#39;easter (talk) 14:50, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I am not sure if a list is viable. But it's interesting to note where great book redirects. Now, terrible book doesn't exist... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:41, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * This one is tricky. We could turn into a table like what I have in my userspace for the best of draft, but that may remove context. On the other hand, this context would presumably be in the articles for the books or the author. I suppose that this could be an additional criteria for the page: to be included the book would need to be independently notable. I'm not opposed to this just being a category either, however it would need some sort of guidelines set forth to ensure that people don't add it willy nilly to books that have been criticized for one reason or another but aren't on a "worst of" list. ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79)  (｡◕‿◕｡)  15:58, 3 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete As per Clarityfiend, "worst" is a vague and subjective inclusion criterion, regardless of whether the word has been used by sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:20, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete If the reliable sources covering this all listed the same books on their worse list, then it'd pass the general notability guidelines. That doesn't seem to be happening though.   D r e a m Focus  10:14, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete this rather un-encyclopedic list. Lightburst (talk) 02:03, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete This article is really about published books that received strongly negative reviews, and/or were mocked in various media. There is no way to arrive at "worst" any more than there is a way to make a list of "yukky foods." Presumably this information should be included in the articles for those books. Lamona (talk) 16:31, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete This article is clearly unencyclopaedic as it is a collection of personal opinions and negative reviews from different sources combined to form a single list. Instead the criticism of each book should be moved to their respective pages. DEFCON5 (talk) 04:07, 8 August 2022 (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.