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

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 22:33, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

List of films that have been considered the worst ever
Article has no NPOV whatsoever. I can find whatever sources I want to support whether I think a movie is good or not. Should not be in an encyclopedia Wikipedianinthehouse 20:38, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - it's POV and the list is way too long. There's a perfectly acceptable (IMO) article dealing with infamously bad movies here. --LemonAndLime 21:10, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Look at the entries: They're actually required by the regular contributors to have cites as to their badness, so that NPOV is preserved. Thanks, Luc "Somethingorother" French 21:19, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, cite awards and anything else to support that they were considered to be horrible movies. Maybe rename to something that doesn't consider them all to be "worst" but just bad. gren グレン 21:21, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. This has been up for deletion at least twice before and survived. It is regularly policed by a number of editors who enforce a minimum standard of requiring a citation so every drive-by anon can't stick their least favorite movie in.  It requires a lot of work before it's as good an article as Films that have been considered the greatest ever but we're working on it. Gamaliel 21:29, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I could find "sources" about any movie that considered it good or bad. I'm sure I could find a source that said Gone with the Wind or E.T. were the worst movies ever made.  It is all subjective. And, just because it has survived two votes before doesn't mean its any good---I know some'thing' else that has survived two votes and isn't any good.  Wikipedianinthehouse 21:32, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * Films that have been considered the greatest ever is mentioned above. Titanic is on both lists.  How can that be possible if this list is encycolpedic?  Wikipedianinthehouse 21:35, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd personally say "overrated" would be a more appropriate title, but Robert Altman and the viewers of the BBC said "worst", so there it is. Thanks, Luc "Somethingorother" French 21:45, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
 * It is encyclopedic because, just as in Films that have been considered the greatest ever, it cites polls, published books, and the opinions of leading critics. Titanic appears on both lists because it was immensely popular with the public at the time and criticially unpopular. Gamaliel 21:47, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, Titanic was popular with critics, (86% Rotten Tomato rating), a fact that conveniently disappeared from the article after I had added it in. This is the problem: too many editors are dumping films onto the list just to push their own POV. Extraordinary Machine 23:48, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:NPOV Kappa 23:31, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, well-sourced. Zoe 23:44, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. This list could quite easily be just POV but it's been extensively pruned so that only films seriously referred to as the worst ever are included. It's articles like this that make Wikipedia fun to read. David | Talk 23:51, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong keep as NPOV and encyclopaedic. IIRC this article has been VFD'd once before and I believe I voted to keep then, too. 23skidoo 00:17, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Citations are in order. I don't especially like the title, but the contents are fine. Denni &#9775; 01:17, 2005 September 5 (UTC)
 * Keep. Cites sources, thus NPOV. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:19, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep I enjoyed reading this, even if I didn't agree with some of the choices! Well referenced, as mentioned above. Sabine's Sunbird 02:29, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. I actually read this article with great interest over a month ago and it never occurred to me that it did not meet Wikipedia standards. It's been here for over two years now. -- WCFrancis 02:45, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. LemonAndLime is off base. There is no rule determining whether the "worst films" list is too long or not. And the alternative "perfectly acceptable article dealing with infamously bad movies..." also known as the Golden Raspberry Awards only covers the bad movies made from 1980 to present. Alansaltnpepper 18:21, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Interesting article and with some website references, it is not original research. Sjakkalle (Check!)  08:53, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, one of the few good lists on Wikipedia. Proto t c 13:35, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, This list is actually informative and NPOV. However, as other people have stated, it needs a name change. May I suggest List of movies that have been unanimously panned by critics. Hossmann 15:59, September 5 2005
 * Keep &mdash; many of the entries are self-documented as to why they are on the list, so that would seem sufficient. Individual entries still need references. &mdash; RJH 21:11, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Superfluous keep vote, along with a note on proposals to change this article's name. This article's been through a series of back-and-forth name changes, including "List of movies that are famous for being widely considered extremely bad", which is probably one of the most tortuous titles in the history of Wikipedia. We'll probably never settle on a title that satisfies everyone, but I think the current title is OK. It's not really a POV problem; something like "List of bad films" would be.   [  +t,  +c ,  +m  ] 10:15, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - Though User:Wikipedianinthehouse has a good point. I do think that the policies should be tightened up to require a critical or popular consensus, rather than just a single citation.  For example: having a movie like Titanic in there is somewhat ridiculous, considering how many awards it's won, how many critics loved it, and how outright popular it was--the people who consider it a bad movie are in the minority, yet the "single citation" policy lets the movie onto this list. - Lifefeed 13:03, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, and don't make querulous nominations like this - David Gerard 11:48, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep The content is solid enough. L-Zwei 16:27, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep It's not subjective - it's movies CONSIDERED to be the worst ever. Whether something is good or bad is POV. Whether something is considered by many to be good or bad is fact. Fantom 17:24, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - Entertaining & educational.Raylene Jackson
 * Delete - It's funny, but is basically an opinion article, and should be deleted. Not encyclopedia worthy.  I liked it though.  Maybe we need a Wikicriticism site?  Roy Brumback
 * Keep - Some people just get their knickers in a knot because movies they like end up here (or vice-versa). Atlant 00:04, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - NPOV can be established by only accepting entries that have been nominated by well known media/sources. Note: this article deals with movies that have been considered, not is. --Hurricane111 05:08, 12 September 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.