Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The 50 Worst Movies Ever Made

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. Golbez 18:49, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

The 50 Worst Movies Ever Made

cf.Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_May_7 Category:The 50 Worst Movies Ever Made category deletion

A 2004 DVD documentary on which 50 movies the creators deem to be the worst ever. No particular word on why this particular DVD from last year is a significant opinion piece. -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:51, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Bit of cleanup needed, but a harmless addition to the 'worst movies' corpus of articles. Quoting a DVD is an objective way of presenting a subjective list. The JPS 23:00, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep and cleanup. Real movie: NYTimes review —Wahoofive (talk) 00:07, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pedro Sanchez 00:09, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Real DVD but no information on how these films were nominated. Capitalistroadster 02:02, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Hoekenheef 02:04, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep good article, maybe some cleanup. Howabout1 02:06, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, New York Times coverage proves people might be interested. Kappa 04:40, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, POV. Radiant_* 08:37, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
- How is it POV? Kappa 18:31, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Unless done by something objective like 'gross ticket sales compensated for nation of origin and inflation', selecting 50 movies to qualify as the 'worst ever' is a POV process. Granted, it's the POV of the people who published the DVD, but it's still POV. R adiant _* 07:52, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
keep please it is a real documentary Yuckfoo 17:41, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no potential to become encyclopedic, impossible to make NPOV. Dozens of lists like this are published (in verifiable media) each year. None adds verifiable factual knowledge to the universe; I don't see that an article about one (which is not an authoritative list from some source more noteworthy than the other dozens) adds usable information to the Wikipedia. At best, this should be merged to an overview of such lists. I don't think even that could be made encyclopedic, since the topic is subjective "worst" rather than "most objectionable on a specific point that could be discussed as a sociological issue." Barno 20:32, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- It is an interesting one. Best/Worst movie lists are ultimately subjective. But, they are a phenomenon which obviously exists (otherwise there wouldn’t be DVDs about them). This article is NPOV. Quoting a list from a DVD is a very good NPOV of presenting this POV phenomenon, in the same way that wikipedia can present a NPOV article on the POV ideologies of, for example, the British Conservative Party (etc.). We are presenting subjectivity in an objective way. The article is not subjectively suggesting a list of the worst movies ever made, it is objectively reporting the opinions of a professionally distributed DVD.
  This usefully supplements List of movies that have been considered among the worst ever because of its NPOV. The JPS 21:31, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Conversely, I'm not a big fan of the tone of The Fifty Worst Films of All Time at the moment. The JPS 21:53, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - It seems to me that that's not answering Barno's question, though. Yes, we are objectively reporting someone's subjective opinion. However, what is it about these someones that makes their subjective opinions worth reporting? Roger Ebert, the first author to win a Pulitzer Prize for film criticism, wrote a book about movies he loathed, but we haven't covered that. The Golden Turkey Awards, written by Harry and Michael Medved, is sometimes credited with bringing Plan 9 From Outer Space from forgotten to cult status and yet there's no coverage of that. Let's be honest: are books/DVDs about "Here's the movies we think suck!" really that rare that one deserves coverage just because it's there? -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:56, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - We do have Golden Turkey Awards, we also have Golden Raspberry Awards, and there's no reason we shouldn't cover the other topics you mention. Kappa 23:58, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - You're right, we have The Golden Turkey Awards, and now it's under the actual title. When it's a redlink from the name of its author one can be excused for thinking we don't have it. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:34, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's a professionally produced and distributed DVD. If you think that Ebert's rhetoric is worth an article, then go ahead and write it: I wouldn't oppose.The JPS 00:39, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable and interesting --Leopard 16:39, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Not POV if it's factually reporting someone's opinion. Do question notability and relevance, but I don't vote on those (yet). Wouldn't trade this for List of movies that have been considered among the worst ever, though. JRM · Talk 16:43, 2005 May 11 (UTC)
RENAME to The 50 Worst Movies Ever Made (Documentary). --Jeffrey O. Gustafson 04:26, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While I put up the category for deletion, there's nothing wrong with an article on this documentary, and it would be useful to have this article given that people are citing this docu on List of movies that have been considered among the worst ever. I do wish there was more information about the DVD itself in the article, however. Gamaliel 06:43, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, worth an article.--Prem 03:11, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.