Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of films considered the worst (8th 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   keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust Talk to me about my editsreview  17:12, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

List of films considered the worst
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

Yeah, I’m aware that the last deletion (three years ago) closed as snow keep. However, Wikipedia’s policies have changed in the intervening three years. The article clearly violates WP:INDISCRIMINATE; it is a purely subjective and not-exhaustive list (it doesn’t even contain all the films in some of its major sources). Most other similar superlative lists (best, greatest, worst) have been deleted; see no reason why this shouldn’t either. A previous argument made in the last deletion discussion was it should be kept because every film on this list has been deemed the worst by a critic; I refute that by saying that a) the listen doesn’t even contain all the films all the critics mention consider to be bad, and b) it’s subjective already in what critics you choose to listen to (probably just as subjective as what films you pick in the first place). This article is a time sink; a set of special rules had to be instituted just for this article to keep people from adding whatever they please. A further concern is that the article isn’t globalized. Though I concede that this article probably passes notability, I feel that that is more than outweighed by it being a violation what Wikipedia is not.  Purpleback pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  14:51, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep -- Clearly notable topic, which needs clean-up to give it a worldwide point of view. The idea of bad films has been heavily discussed by critics. The definition could be clearer, but the article as stands is not indiscriminate. I read it as "Films listed by one or more notable critic as being the worst ever", which will result in a large list (but not indiscriminate). Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:07, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * How is it not indiscriminate? Either you pick which films to have and have not, or you pick which critics to have or have not.  Having critics doesn't make it not indiscriminate; it just passes the discrimination on to a different type of thing.  And if you listed every single film in the world that a critic said was the worst; you'd have a very, very (ungainly) long list  Purpleback  pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  15:21, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep -- are seven attempts to delete this page really not enough? As mentioned, the page has generally been treated as the list of worst movies ever made according to notable critics, and regularly trimmed to keep it under control. This kind of nonsense deletionism is the reason why I no longer bother editing much anymore. Mark Grant (talk) 15:52, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Nonsense deletionism? This article is an discrimate list, and has other problems beyond that.  And what makes a critic notable?   Purpleback  pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  15:54, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - Echo what Mark Grant says above. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:13, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Even if it misses "The Horror of Party Beach" . Collect (talk) 17:43, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep On condition that the criteria is tightened slightly. At the moment we have a clearly notable topic that is perilously close to becoming an indiscriminate list. It might better to see if we can propose some hard criteria on the article talk page. Under the current criteria I would advocate deleting the article, but I think the problem can be fixed. Betty Logan (talk) 18:11, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep as a reasonable topic. The article title may be somewhat nebulous, but it is realistic to define criteria based on consensus. In addition, policy has not changed. WP:INDISCRIMINATE's main passage has been the same forever. To address the other issues, the article can (and apparently does) follow WP:PEACOCK in proper attribution. As for too much criteria for inclusion, that is not an argument for deletion. There are many so-called "natural" topics out there that have to be covered in a specific way; we don't delete them because it's too hard. Lastly, the article not being globalized sounds like a reason for cleanup, not a reason for deletion. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 19:15, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Perhaps the criteria for inclusion should be several notable critics considering it the worst? Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:41, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Then you get into the gray area about what's a notable critic...  Purpleback pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  23:27, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Has an article or is likely to have an article, works for a respected medium (be it print or audio-visual; i.e. no celebrity bloggers, or Comic Book Guy wannabes). Not that hard, really. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:36, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep It appears, after 8 discussions on this, that people consider this article an ideal topic. Even if Bucky Larson isn't on the list. RAP (talk) 19:41 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * What do 8 nominations have to do with it? The last one was in 2008  Purpleback  pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  20:40, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep in accord with above sentiments that problems with the page can be fixed, and that there is nothing inherently wrong or unmanageable about the topic itself. I think a general consensus has been reached by the community over the years to hold onto potentially subjective "List of X" articles as with List of songs deemed the worst(5 failed AfDs), List of video games notable for negative reception(6 AfDs), etc. While AfD's can potentially change, most AfDs dealing with these types of articles end up seeming more like pulling the arm of a slot machine than reflecting a realistic chance at successfully deleting the article. This article should improve over time, so I don't think there's need to worry.AerobicFox (talk) 22:21, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'm surprised that the "worst songs" page has survived. For one, it's very short. For another, it's a different medium from movies, different advertising, different critiques. And extremely subjective. The fact that a song such as "Build Me Up Buttercup" grates on my ears doesn't keep it from being considered a hit. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:26, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Snow keep especially for the reasons articulated above by Mark Grant, Eric, and Aerobic Fox. --Arxiloxos (talk) 22:29, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 22:40, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 22:40, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep per the numerous sound arguments made above. ---  RepublicanJacobite  TheFortyFive 23:36, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. The list as it currently stands is quite short and manageable, and is noteworthy.  Additionally, I can't believe that Boxing Helena isn't on the list - this is clear evidence that the list isn't indiscriminate. ;) Colon el  Tom 00:17, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep as per the arguments above. The films should be listed as such by major film critics. SpeakFree (talk)(contribs) 16:28, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. The efforts that have been made to limit the content of this list and to avoid individual user POV should be commended. As much as the question of the "best ever" film has been posed a sufficient number of times to render it a suitably encyclopaedic topic (incidentally, how is it that List of films considered the best has received only three AfD nominations compared to this article's eight?), so the question of the "worst ever" seems to be just as valid. An article as well-sourced as this one would be a significant loss to the project if it were deleted.  Super Mario  Man  19:50, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep per the comments already made. This topic has as much coverage among critics and scholars as any best of list does. MarnetteD | Talk 20:07, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Snow keep This is a clearly notable topic and many reliable sources produce similar lists. In fact, some lists are so notable (such as Empireonline.com's list), that even the lists themselves become topics of coverage by other reliable sources.  Given 14 editors so far have argued in favor of keep (and I'm number 15) and no one has agreed with the nom, I think this should be closed as a snow keep.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:17, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep This is a notable topic, and there's tons of reliable sources. DinosaurDan (talk) 23:47, 7 November 2011 (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.