Wiki143:Articles for deletion/The Fifty Worst Films of All Time

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep (no consensus), but cleaning up is in order. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:50, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

The Fifty Worst Films of All Time

Presents the book author's personal point of view of questionable objective value. The comment about Zabriskie Point by Michelangelo Antonioni is a propaganda. I entered NPOV 10 days ago and am now suggesting that this page is removed altogether. - Introvert 02:32, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Agreed. --Cleared as filed. 02:40, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Cleanup and keep if the article reports the book's authors' pov that isnt as much of a problem. there's way less than fifty films on here, but Michael Medved seems notable enough. Nateji77 03:48, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - but move to Michael Medved's Fifty Worst Films of All Time, and check for copyvio/POV. -- BD2412 ^talk 04:25, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Clairification: I have no problem with an article on the book under the current title (with a pointer at the top to the List of movies that have been cited as being among the worst ever made), or a bare list of the movies themselves under my suggested title. However, I frankly see no reason why an article on the book would not also contain a list of Medved's picks. -- BD2412 ^talk 20:28, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Everything Michael Medved writes is propaganda, and yet unfortunately for the world, he is a notable critic. I agree with BD2412: rename to Michael Medved's Fifty Worst Films of All Time, if it's not copyvio. Didn't realize there was already a similar article. Redirect this one to The 50 Worst Movies Ever Made, since Medved's opinions don't justify two very similar articles and the author could only be bothered to tell us about approximately 3 of these 50. Dcarrano 04:41, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- offers nothing insighful or encyclopedic, so it can be safely zapped, I believe -mysekurity 04:46, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Interesting. Have I forgotten how to count or are they just a few shy of fifty here? Anyway, redirect, no merge (though maybe incorporate something from here) to whatever article we have on films that are generally considered the worst ever or whatever. I know it's around here somewhere. -R. fiend 07:11, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
  • It's List of movies that have been cited as being among the worst ever made. Uncle G 12:02, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
    • That's the one! But now that youmention it I guess a redirect to The 50 Worst Movies Ever Made is a better choice. -R. fiend 15:53, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Even if re-named as suggested, still not encyclopedic. Everyone'sACritic 11:42, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Note that The 50 Worst Movies Ever Made was nominated for deletion on 2005-05-09 and that the result of the discussion at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/The 50 Worst Movies Ever Made was "keep". Uncle G 12:02, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect to (ugh) The 50 Worst Movies Ever Made. Medved made his name with his list of bad movies. It's what gave him the platform to begin crusading against "non-family" films and to get stroked by the far right as one of their very own. The original list of bad movies he made was more important than anything he has done since, therefore, as it had the widest audience and actually opened up a popular trend in making such (awful) lists. We have him once. We sure don't need him twice, especially in a mangled form. Geogre 13:24, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Y'all are right, my vote wasn't logical. Let me re-vote. 1. Rewrite so that this article is about the genre of "ordinal bad film lists" and Medved in particular. 2. Redirect all other ordinal bad film lists to this. If this has a discussion of the phenomenon of schlock film lists that is distinct from kitsch and then zeroes in on Medved's platform-making work, then there is no need for any of these other lists. Indeed, the other lists must be deleted, as they are "inherently POV." Sorry for my own confused vote, earlier. Geogre 02:50, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

• That doesn't make sense - The 50 Worst Movies Ever Made is the later one - by your argument isn't this the one we should keep? Sirmob 13:29, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Comment: Good point. I don't want to say "merge and redirect," because I think there's too little here to postpone the issue for the eventuality of the merge queue getting cleared, but, yes, the more popular The 50 Worst Movies Ever Made should explain that it was built on the "films" book, which was built on an article, and that it was what gave Medved his cachet in film critics, which he then parlayed into a position of fame in political circles. Geogre 16:35, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

• No, I think we should keep the complete one. -R. fiend 15:35, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Notable book. The book is POV, but the article is not. Pburka 18:03, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as a notable book but it looks like a bunch of stuff has been deleted from it as there certainly aren't 50 films listed. Needs improvement to its intro to establish rationale and to stave off POV accusations. 23skidoo 02:47, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete POV, not encyclopedic. JamesBurns 08:08, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - POV - Skysmith 12:39, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, POV. Radiant_>|< 14:24, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Book is somewhat notable. The listing of movies should be reduced to just a list, however. Almafeta 20:56, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• keep please it is not against our policy to document books that are pov it is a real book with a real isbn Yuckfoo 22:53, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete POV, not encyclopedic carmeld1 02:14, 12 July 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.