Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Worst Movie 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   no consensus. After 2 relists there is still no consensus over whether the movie is notable or not. Most of the discussion has been about the movie, rather than Glenn Berggoetz article so no prejudice to someone renominating the Glenn Berggoetz article sooner than would be normal. Davewild (talk) 16:15, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

The Worst Movie Ever!

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This movie's main claim of notability is that it achieved the lowest opening weekend in box office history ($11). This stunt received a smattering of coverage, but not enough in my opinion to validate what is a fairly obvious publicity grab. No one associated with this film has done anything else of note, and apparently it has yet to even be reviewed by any professional reviewers. (Or even very many unprofessional reviewers, for that matter.) Because Glenn Berggoetz's only claim of notability is being director of this movie, I am nominating that article as well. --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:02, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Note: Glenn Berggoetz was previously deleted as a result of this discussion. I do not consider the current version to be a CSD G4 candidate, however. --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:22, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * NOTE: With respects to the nominator, the article on Berggoetz asserts more than "just one thing", and though I opined a delete for him nine months ago at the last Glenn Berggoetz AFD, it seems now that his coverage has increased enough since that the Glenn Berggoetz is worth improving.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 01:40, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The Glenn Berggoetz article asserts next to nothing, notability-wise. Directing a string of self-produced movies that no one has ever seen does not make a director notable. The four references currently being used in the Berggoetz article certainly don't convince me: one is the director's own website, one doesn't mention the director at all, and the other two contain fairly trivial mentions, focusing more on the movie itself. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:48, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Which might sensibly indicate that Berggoetzt, even if not meriting a separate article, might at least merit mention in the film article in a background section describing why this latest film was created and by whom.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 02:44, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  — &mdash; alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 05:31, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  — &mdash; alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 05:31, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Redirect To Transformers 3.  Lugnuts  (talk) 07:00, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirecting one bomb to another?  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 01:40, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep per having theatrical release and having coverage. WP:NF also allows that the worst films ever might merit an article. What was nominated  has now been expanded and sourced to show it being the recipient of coverage and critical commentary in reliable secondary sources. It benefits the encyclopdia if this one remains and is improved over time and through regular editing. And no... this one will likley never be as widely revered as Star Wars or Field of Dreams, but it has only been one month since its theatrical release and coverage for film and filmmaker is continuing. Let's revisit this article in 8 or 9 months.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 01:40, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 00:21, 5 October 2011 (UTC)




 * Delete Nothing more than a publicity stunt. Why not have an article about the film which took zero dollars at the box office, or the film with the longest title, or a film shown entirely up-side-down? --ЗAНИA talk talk] 23:18, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Nice suggestions for new articles... and we DO have an article on a film with the longest title which, with its sequels, was done as much as a stunt as not. But reading the sources for THIS one, we can learn that its poor premiere was NOT intended as publicity stunt, just a film that for various reasons has a very poor initial screening. As it has only recently released and reecieved coverage, we can wait. I would be fine with WP:INCUBATION.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 06:29, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - when I first made this page, I did so because it was fairly obvious to me, and members of our (BoxOfficeMojo) forums that this wasn't a publicity stunt. I think the gross record is notable enough for an article, we have a page for Zyzzyx Road after all, and as Xania pointed out we have a lot of similar articles with less important notability. The page hasn't been great at times but is well sourced now and shows there is clearly enough in the way of (viable) secondary sources to argue in favour of an article here. Sexyparty (talk) 10:09, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)  01:01, 14 October 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.