Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of books that have been considered the worst ever


 * 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 delete moink 01:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

List of books that have been considered the worst ever
Delete I'm a little dubious about this one, but I think it's (a) completely unverifiable (b) always going to be POV and (c) uncyclopedic. There don't seem to be any 'prominent' sources on this one - we're just going to end up with a list of every book some people in the media/whatever didn't like. And, of course, right now it's unsourced - at the very least, the books should be removed until they have some sources (but I decided to AfD instead, and we'll see if anyone has a viable idea). Fuzzie (talk) 08:24, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete grossly uncyclopedic j o s h  b u d d y talk 08:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC) Delete Unless there is an online list by a reliable magazine, or something else along the lines of the "worst movies" in imdb that is based on the opinion of a lot of users, I think this couldn't not be POV. Clq 08:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment There are lists for Films considered the worst ever and List of video games considered the worst ever (and I think some others), but both of those go into a fair amount of detail why something might be considered worst, and do have citations. This list doesn't.  If it did the same as those other pages, it might be worth keeping.  Not sure about this one at the moment. Шизомби 08:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete as it stands there's nothing I'd keep in this article; some verifiable sources might make a difference. &mdash; Stumps 08:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC) Delete I don't think it's inherently POV -- I agree with Шизомби that a well-annotated list with cites of who thinks book X is worst ever and why (as per the films/games lists) would be fine -- I just don't see any evidence that anyone's going to put the work in to make it into that. (NB I would consider changing this vote if someone stepped forward.) --Bth 08:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. No sources make it original research. Remy B 08:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, claptrap. --kingboyk 09:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I'd just like to add that Films considered the worst ever is the very model of how these things can be done in a good way. It uses independent sources, provides a readable and helpful narrative, and - bottom line - is a great read. --kingboyk 04:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete, pretty much unverifiable list with no decent parameters for inclusion and just a general mess. See also Listcruft. Stifle 09:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete unless sources are provided. As it stands this article is original research. Sjakkalle (Check!)  09:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Considered 'worst' by whom and with what criteria? This list is meaningless and endlessly debatable without a methodology attached.  Original research is not allowed on WP.   (aeropagitica)   11:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, sadly. After a Google search I did in an attempt to salvage this, I found the effort futile. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 13:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, original research. --Ter e nce Ong 14:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Listcruft. -- Krash (Talk) 15:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete POV Listcruft.Eivind 19:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - Original Research -- light darkness (talk) 20:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * delete unencyclopedic. could be an infinite list. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 21:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete- Original research, and listcruft. Reyk 21:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. If it had any sources, as do Films considered the worst ever and List of video games considered the worst ever, it could be an interesting article, but as it is, it's just OR. I do like, though, that its "rules" state that "[t]he book must have been published during or after the author's death". -- keep sleep ing   slack   off!  21:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above (since I only commented above). That is funny about the rules - I wouldn't think too many books were published during the author's death! Шизомби 22:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Шизомби. I messed with it a little, adding sourced entries and formatting (yeah, I know it's going down, but whatever). Would need to have have all entries sourced, and with more than just single entries, and that would take some work. Herostratus 00:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. How about "Lists of Cruft that have been considered the Cruftiest Cruft ever". The topic has potential (per Keepsleeping) but this is ListCruft.  D e izio  01:40, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete WAY too many subjective choices to be anything but NPOV (Finnegans Wake?!?). --Calton | Talk 08:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Terribly POV. No amount of sourcing is really going to make this article suitable for Wikipedia. If a magazine publishes a list of "worst ever books", I think that should still go under "List of books considered the worst ever (XYZ magazine)" or similar, not under this generic title. - Tangotango 14:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete and start over. Silly criteria and no explanations (compared to film and game lists, which at least explain stuff). "The book must have been published during or after the author's death"? During? =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 11:16, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Au contraire, keep. Sure, the article is slipshod and systemless, lacking any sort of criteria or attribution. But the concept is just possibly workable (as it is for films and video games), if we take it to mean either books that have been said to have had a baleful effect on society or those that have been described as spectacularly unsuccessful as literature. This will take a lot more sourcing than the list of worst films, though, not least because of the number of books ever published, and this is what might make it unworkable. ProhibitOnions 23:16, 14 March 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.