Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The 25 Most Controversial Movies 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 was Speedy and snowball delete. Pure replication of a creative list is a copyvio ("creative list" = someone put creative effort into compiling it, i.e. not just a phone directory). ~ trialsanderrors 10:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The 25 Most Controversial Movies Ever

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Article about an article published in Entertainment Weekly last year. Non-notable, most references to it are in blogs or other trivial sources. Croxley 01:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - possible copyvio but even if not there is nothing notable about this list versus any of the other hundreds or thousands of similar lists put together by various publications. Otto4711 02:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Wikipedia is not Entertainment Weekly (thank God), and as such has no business serving as a repository of EW's "content". Since EW didn't exactly establish any pretense of objectivity, I don't think this is quite the same as copying a Billboard Chart or list of wealthiest individuals. --Action Jackson IV 04:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete and Comment While the article is patent listcruft and should be deleted, the shortcomings of Entertainment Weekly aren't what should be on trial here, but the fitness of the article to remain. Pat Payne 20:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - must we be so paranoid-defensive here? If it was objectively measured - say, I dunno, by doing a LexusNexis style search, or by hooking people up to a sophiscated biorhythmic MRI contraption and having them watch movies - it'd be of an encyclopedic nature. For example, List of highest-grossing films in the United States and Canada is a Keep, even though I personally can only call four out of the fifty movies on the list "good movies". Thus, what you somehow gleam as "shortcomings" are in fact exactly what's on trial. Jesus. --Action Jackson IV 01:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete —  Are we going to have an article about every article ever written by any publication? What are we, LexisNexis?  The article, in and of itself, is not notable. Philippe Beaudette 04:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. We can't have an article on every magazine article published. The article isn't notable-  Cat tleG irl  '' talk 08:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per all the above. Metamagician3000 09:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - the fact that the contenent of the article can't be verified notwithstanding, the subject matter appears to be taken directly from another article. -- Cyrus Andiron   t/c 14:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete; single article, plus the listing is arbitrarily chosen. --Mhking 15:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per all of the above, far too subjective at not really encyclopedic material anyhow. Burntsauce 17:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOT. Acalamari 18:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete An article about an article? That seems a little off to me. I agree with all the above, especially CattleGirl: we can't have an article on every magazine article ever published. The enwiki_p database would grow to 10TB. — Tuvok[T@lk/Improve me] 22:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. There are way too many lists like this one for us to just print them. It's somewhat of a copyright violation.  Without a discussion about the list, I can't support having an article on it, and the purposes of this article is to reprint the list.  (Oh, and stretch fair use a little bit further). Mango juice talk 18:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. Captain panda   In   vino   veritas  00:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete subjective list of no consequence when the next one comes out - which won't be notable either. TheRealFennShysa 15:33, 26 March 2007 (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.