This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Serpent's Choice (talk | contribs) at 09:55, 29 April 2007 (→[]: Revert pagemove to re-establish objectivity.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 09:55, 29 April 2007 by Serpent's Choice (talk | contribs) (→[]: Revert pagemove to re-establish objectivity.)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)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)
- Delete per nom. How in the hell is Pearl Harbor not on this list? Pablo Talk | Contributions 06:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- response kate beckinsale + jennifer garner = impossible to receive negative reception. the_undertow 07:14, 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)