Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of films generating losses


 * 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 AdamBiswanger1 02:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

List of films generating losses
This list is generated entirely by applying subjective calculations to sparsely available and extremely unreliable figures (and usually performing the stated calculation erroneously). The standard procedure for unsourced, untrue material is to remove it. Since none (zero, a yawning void, the empty set) of the material in this article is sourced, and most of it is untrue &mdash; and the article is inherently impossible to source and maintain &mdash; the whole thing should be deleted. ➥the Epopt 00:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as impractical list. Since most films make losses (its a hit-driven business), this would include 60-80% of all commercial films globally, throughout cinematic history. Even if you restrict it to Hollywood, the list would be too large Bwithh 00:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Bwithh, this is list-C-word. Danny Lilithborne 01:35, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Egads, that's a bad, unmaintainable, potentially infinite, poorly-conceived list. -- Kicking222 05:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Pavel Vozenilek 10:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Listcruft. The worst losses can be covered on films considered the worst ever. --Kitch (Talk 12:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Even if it could be sourced, it'd be unmaintainable. — TKD::Talk 00:06, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Seems to be sourced and is useful. It's also different in purpose and design than Films considered the worst ever as some financial failures are not seen as being among the "worst films." That said it needs a cut-off, like the loss should be 75% or more as large as the budget.--T. Anthony 12:24, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete essentially impossible to reliably source either total costs or revenues connected with a film. No predjudice against the creation of z sourced list of films widely considered to be bombs (e.g. Waterworld) as it might be possible to sure these issues when starting over from a blank slate.  Eluchil404 23:07, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. A list of box-office bombs is possible, but this isn't it. Perhaps someone could find a reliable source or five that rank the worst film losses of all time. As Bwithh mentioned, this list could theoretically include 60-80% of all films, making it infinitely subjective and inherently POV which films get on the list and which don't. szyslak  (t, c,  e ) 22:17, 9 October 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.