Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Films notable for negative reception

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. Pea ceNT 12:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Films notable for negative reception

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)[reply]

Delete per nom. How in the hell is Pearl Harbor not on this list? Pablo Talk | Contributions 06:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- response kate beckinsale + jennifer garner = impossible to receive negative reception. the_undertow^talk 07:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They had a sapphic sex scene? Wow, I missed that bit. Nick mallory 08:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 Wikipedia a disservice if we lost this one. --164.107.223.217 20:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Revert pagemove -The list was reasonably well-defined under the old name. Not so anymore. Coren 00:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Revert pagemove, then keep - per Doczilla. New article name is indeed too board. L-Zwei 05:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Revert pagemove and speedy keep Completely notable page. Why the heck was its name changed anyway? -- Grandpafootsoldier 09:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep under old name per everyone else. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 16:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Revert move and keep per above. That deals with the problem nicely. --- RockMFR 20:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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.