Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Films notable for negative reception: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 09:55, 29 April 2007 editSerpent's Choice (talk | contribs)3,927 edits →[]: Revert pagemove to re-establish objectivity.← Previous edit Latest revision as of 19:28, 6 February 2023 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB 
(21 intermediate revisions by 18 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page. ''
<!--Template:Afd top

Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links in order to create a new discussion page using the name format of ]. When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. -->

The result was
'''Keep''' and '''Pagemove reverted''' by ]. ]] 12:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
===]=== ===]===
{{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD|M}}
:{{la|Films notable for negative reception}} – <includeonly>(])</includeonly><noinclude>(])</noinclude> :{{la|Films notable for negative reception}} – <includeonly>(])</includeonly><noinclude>(])</noinclude>
'''Delete''' article with vague, subjective name. Any inclusion criteria would be arbitrary. Under it old name (films considered worst ever), it survived several AfDs, but under that name, it at least had specific criteria. Then, it had to be dubbed worst ever by an appropriate source. Now it's just an unmanageable subjective bit of POV cruft. ] 05:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC) ] 05:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC) '''Delete''' article with vague, subjective name. Any inclusion criteria would be arbitrary. Under it old name (films considered worst ever), it survived several AfDs, but under that name, it at least had specific criteria. Then, it had to be dubbed worst ever by an appropriate source. Now it's just an unmanageable subjective bit of POV cruft. ] 05:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC) ] 05:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


*'''Delete''' per nom. How in the hell is '']'' not on this list? ] <small>] | ]</small> 06:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC) *'''Delete''' per nom. How in the hell is '']'' not on this list? ] <small>] | ]</small> 06:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
**'''response''' kate beckinsale + jennifer garner = impossible to receive negative reception. ]] 07:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC) **'''response''' kate beckinsale + jennifer garner = impossible to receive negative reception. ]] 07:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
:::They had a sapphic sex scene? Wow, I missed that bit. ] 08:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC) :::They had a sapphic sex scene? Wow, I missed that bit. ] 08:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' To be fair, the article does give sources about who called each particular film one of the worst films ever, and most of the films have several sources testifying to their ineptitude. It's not all just one guys opinions about what sucked. I agree about Pearl Harbour though. ] 07:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC) *'''Keep''' To be fair, the article does give sources about who called each particular film one of the worst films ever, and most of the films have several sources testifying to their ineptitude. It's not all just one guys opinions about what sucked. I agree about Pearl Harbour though. ] 07:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Line 11: Line 18:
*'''Keep''' it was nominated (unsuccessfully) for deletion '''5''' times under the old name. The name change was made one week ago on April 22 as a result of discussion on the talk page in the hope of being less liable to deletion attempts--this was quite evidently totally unsuccessful. The list had reasonable criteria before, and it has them now: "either been cited by a combination of reputable sources as the worst movie of the year, or been on such a source's list of worst movies. Examples ...include the Golden Raspberry Awards ("Razzies"), Roger Ebert's list of most hated films, and the Internet Movie Database's "Bottom 100" list." Discussion about individual films on the talk page show a sensible attempt to apply the criteria. I continue to dislike the practice of repeated AfDs. There is a considerable variation in the people participated in these discussions, and a considerable variety in the results. Many pages will be chance be eventually deleted without new evidence being raised on new concerns voiced, essentially by the luck of the draw. This is not a rational way to establish standards. Consensus can change about the application of particular criterion over a number of months, but it does not change week to week.''']''' 09:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC) *'''Keep''' it was nominated (unsuccessfully) for deletion '''5''' times under the old name. The name change was made one week ago on April 22 as a result of discussion on the talk page in the hope of being less liable to deletion attempts--this was quite evidently totally unsuccessful. The list had reasonable criteria before, and it has them now: "either been cited by a combination of reputable sources as the worst movie of the year, or been on such a source's list of worst movies. Examples ...include the Golden Raspberry Awards ("Razzies"), Roger Ebert's list of most hated films, and the Internet Movie Database's "Bottom 100" list." Discussion about individual films on the talk page show a sensible attempt to apply the criteria. I continue to dislike the practice of repeated AfDs. There is a considerable variation in the people participated in these discussions, and a considerable variety in the results. Many pages will be chance be eventually deleted without new evidence being raised on new concerns voiced, essentially by the luck of the draw. This is not a rational way to establish standards. Consensus can change about the application of particular criterion over a number of months, but it does not change week to week.''']''' 09:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
*'''Revert pagemove'''. Even the nominator states that "under that name, it at least had specific criteria." The actual pagemove discussion had only 4 participants, including the IP nominator (and was still not unanimous). So, we move it back. Well-intentioned idea, didn't work out. ] 09:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC) *'''Revert pagemove'''. Even the nominator states that "under that name, it at least had specific criteria." The actual pagemove discussion had only 4 participants, including the IP nominator (and was still not unanimous). So, we move it back. Well-intentioned idea, didn't work out. ] 09:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
*'''Speedy Keep''', because there are enough lists and critical reviews out there to make such an interesting article managable and well-cited. We'd be doing Misplaced Pages a disservice if we lost this one. --] 20:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''', preferably under the old name. Lighten up. If we're going to keep any of these marginal lists, keep this one. It's way fun. ] 21:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep'''. The inclusion criteria keeps this list from devolving into "subjective POV cruft". And most, if not all, of the entries <i>do</i> meet the criteria mentioned in the article and are very well-presented. ] 21:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
* '''Comment''' Like with ], I don't think the concept violates WP policy. There's alot of references out there that this article is built on that satisfies WP:V & WP:OR. However, this article builds a taxonomy(B-movies,Star Vehicles, etc...) which it defines itself with no resources (]). On top of that, the title "Films notable for negative reception" is ] as 'notable' is a subjective term. "Films considered the worst ever" is more neutral in my opinion. <span style="font-family:Verdana; font-weight:bolder;">] <sub>]|]</sub></span> 21:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
*'''Revert pagemove''' -The list was reasonably well-defined under the old name. Not so anymore. ] 00:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
*'''Revert pagemove. Keep under old name.''' Inclusion criteria worked under the old name. Under the new name, this is not remotely maintainable and any inclusion criteria would be arbitrary. Delete only if name is not reverted. ] 03:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
*'''Revert pagemove, then keep''' - per ]. New article name is indeed too board. ] 05:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
*'''Weak Keep''' Both the old and the current titles seem to invite POV edits. However, there is a whole ] devoted to films (including ''Pearl Harbor'') removed from the main page for failing standards, which suggests that there are clear standards and that they are enforced. I prefer the old article title to the current title because it does suggest stricter standards for inclusion.--] 15:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
*'''Revert pagemove and keep''' - per ]. Possibly the page could be edited (yet again) to emphasize the criteria for inclusion. ] 04:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
*'''Revert pagemove and speedy keep''' Completely notable page. Why the heck was its name changed anyway? -- ] 09:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep under old name''' per everyone else. --] | (]) 16:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
*'''Revert move and keep''' per above. That deals with the problem nicely. --- ] 20:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
*'''Revert and keep''' as stated by many before me, but it seems somebody had already reverted to the old name. Shall we close this discussion, then? ] 19:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
* '''Keep''' is very well sourced and largely to the point, even though the criteria is a little vague. --] (]) 09:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page.'' <!--Template:Afd bottom--></div>

Latest revision as of 19:28, 6 February 2023

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 and Pagemove reverted by User:BlueLotas. PeaceNT 12:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Films notable for negative reception

Films notable for negative reception (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Delete article with vague, subjective name. Any inclusion criteria would be arbitrary. Under it old name (films considered worst ever), it survived several AfDs, but under that name, it at least had specific criteria. Then, it had to be dubbed worst ever by an appropriate source. Now it's just an unmanageable subjective bit of POV cruft. Wryspy 05:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC) Wryspy 05:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

They had a sapphic sex scene? Wow, I missed that bit. Nick mallory 08:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep To be fair, the article does give sources about who called each particular film one of the worst films ever, and most of the films have several sources testifying to their ineptitude. It's not all just one guys opinions about what sucked. I agree about Pearl Harbour though. Nick mallory 07:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment So if the problem is that the new name is vague and subjective, why don't we change the name back rather than delete it? Imban 07:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep it was nominated (unsuccessfully) for deletion 5 times under the old name. The name change was made one week ago on April 22 as a result of discussion on the talk page in the hope of being less liable to deletion attempts--this was quite evidently totally unsuccessful. The list had reasonable criteria before, and it has them now: "either been cited by a combination of reputable sources as the worst movie of the year, or been on such a source's list of worst movies. Examples ...include the Golden Raspberry Awards ("Razzies"), Roger Ebert's list of most hated films, and the Internet Movie Database's "Bottom 100" list." Discussion about individual films on the talk page show a sensible attempt to apply the criteria. I continue to dislike the practice of repeated AfDs. There is a considerable variation in the people participated in these discussions, and a considerable variety in the results. Many pages will be chance be eventually deleted without new evidence being raised on new concerns voiced, essentially by the luck of the draw. This is not a rational way to establish standards. Consensus can change about the application of particular criterion over a number of months, but it does not change week to week.DGG 09:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Revert pagemove. Even the nominator states that "under that name, it at least had specific criteria." The actual pagemove discussion had only 4 participants, including the IP nominator (and was still not unanimous). So, we move it back. Well-intentioned idea, didn't work out. Serpent's Choice 09:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep, because there are enough lists and critical reviews out there to make such an interesting article managable and well-cited. We'd be doing Misplaced Pages a disservice if we lost this one. --164.107.223.217 20:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, preferably under the old name. Lighten up. If we're going to keep any of these marginal lists, keep this one. It's way fun. Herostratus 21:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. The inclusion criteria keeps this list from devolving into "subjective POV cruft". And most, if not all, of the entries do meet the criteria mentioned in the article and are very well-presented. Svalbard in winter 21:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Like with Films considered the greatest ever, I don't think the concept violates WP policy. There's alot of references out there that this article is built on that satisfies WP:V & WP:OR. However, this article builds a taxonomy(B-movies,Star Vehicles, etc...) which it defines itself with no resources (WP:OR). On top of that, the title "Films notable for negative reception" is POV as 'notable' is a subjective term. "Films considered the worst ever" is more neutral in my opinion. Mitaphane ?|! 21:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Revert pagemove -The list was reasonably well-defined under the old name. Not so anymore. Coren 00:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Revert pagemove. Keep under old name. Inclusion criteria worked under the old name. Under the new name, this is not remotely maintainable and any inclusion criteria would be arbitrary. Delete only if name is not reverted. Doczilla 03:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Revert pagemove, then keep - per Doczilla. New article name is indeed too board. L-Zwei 05:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep Both the old and the current titles seem to invite POV edits. However, there is a whole talk page devoted to films (including Pearl Harbor) removed from the main page for failing standards, which suggests that there are clear standards and that they are enforced. I prefer the old article title to the current title because it does suggest stricter standards for inclusion.--FreeKresge 15:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Revert pagemove and keep - per Serpent's Choice. Possibly the page could be edited (yet again) to emphasize the criteria for inclusion. Lokicarbis 04:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Revert pagemove and speedy keep Completely notable page. Why the heck was its name changed anyway? -- Grandpafootsoldier 09:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep under old name per everyone else. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 16:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Revert move and keep per above. That deals with the problem nicely. --- RockMFR 20:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Revert and keep as stated by many before me, but it seems somebody had already reverted to the old name. Shall we close this discussion, then? rohith 19:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep is very well sourced and largely to the point, even though the criteria is a little vague. --h2g2bob (talk) 09:00, 4 May 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.
Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Films notable for negative reception: Difference between revisions Add topic