Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of flops in entertainment

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 Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-10 20:55Z

List of flops in entertainment

I propose that this article is unsalvageable original research. It begins with a shaky premise (namely, failing to define "flop" or to defend use of the word from accusations of original research and opinion) and has since become a dumping ground for everybody to add what they think is a "flop", regardless of a) whether it actually was, b) if there's a source to confirm it, or c) if it's status as a "flop" meaningfully contributes to its notability. The article is written and indeed structured in an unencyclopedic gossipy tone with innapropriate editorial comments after nearly EVERY entry. There is no attempt at providing references. Furthermore, adding a reference to each entry (which I don't believe will ever happen) will merely make this a list of "things that one source or another has referred to as a flop," which is in indiscriminate-list territory. Please don't be swayed by the fact that a lot of people have spent a lot of time turning this into a humungous list. It is fundamentally flawed and at the very least should be blanked and started from scratch with specific criteria and citations for every entry. Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 04:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I think you're right about this article being flawed from its conception. fraggle 09:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per comments from here. At least for the anime listings, it was entirely U.S. centric and the proponent of the list wasn't able to convince anyone in WP:ANIME to add to it for exactly the OR and vagary that the nominator mentioned. --Farix (Talk) 15:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Please get rid of this. Total OR and very speculative. Booshakla 16:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete You'd never get people to agree on a definition of flop - If I made an album that sold 1000 copies I'd be delighted, but somebody else would be disappointed. It's all in the eye of the beholder, with no clear boundary. Cue endless arguments and edit wars. Totnesmartin 16:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I wud hav 2 say most of this is true, and for the anime, in my pov, all 3 of them r totally shit anyway no wonder why they all failed and for a bloke to say how great Sailor Moon, well don't make me laugh, its a fucmkin gerls carton, all I say is keep the articel and keep up with this stupid edit wars, thats wot wiki is for, totally stupid retard edit wars. Jade Goody 18:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Please be civil with your comments and avoid the use of profanity. --Farix (Talk) 19:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it is only someone's opinion.-MsHyde 18:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:OR. TonyTheTiger 18:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and start over (per nom). Several of these entries can easily be sourced so that it doesn't come off as POV (e.g., newspaper articles with critical disdain about the 1983-1984 NBC season), but what started out as a simple list has snowballed by well-meaning editors who have made the article an unsalvagable mess. Also, I don't think there's a need to protect against re-creating this article; if someone does a good job, then the new version can be kept. [[Briguy52748 20:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
Delete per above Hobbeslover ^{talk/contribs} 20:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete List inclusion is too subjective. POV issues. Dugwiki 20:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not define the term correctly for some of them and the bigger thing is should the real Jade Goody be in a rehab by now or something rather than making scathing comments like she did or am I talking another namesake with a mouth full of crap sprouting off to the middle of nowhere like the real thing, one thing is how can somebody called Blade: The Series a flop when the reality is its the highest show on that channel as well as a young channel like Spike TV cannot afford to keep the show going. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dr Tobias Funke (talk • contribs) 22:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Comment: So, Dr. Tobias Funke, what are you actually saying that is relevant to the argument, aside from the first part of the statement? [[Briguy52748 04:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)]][reply]

Comment: What that question is saying, it is wrong to assume Blade is a failure. Dr Tobias Funke 18:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a number of things on this list that can not possibly be considered "flops" no matter what your definition.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 20:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I generally like lists of this sort, but as criteria for inclusion go, this is about the most indefinite imaginable. Possibly it can be rewritten as one of more more specific articles where there are specific criteria-- e.g. Major studio movies grossing under..., or TV shows with audience less than ... etc. etc. there are a great many possibilities. DGG 05:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - I loved this article; it was entertaining and imformative. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.93.116.176 at 18:25, 7 February 2007.

Of course it's entertaining, it just doesn't belong on wikipedia.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 20:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - Whoa, we're having celeb reality TV loser who will be stacking shelves at your local supermarket sprouting off some crap here, then a gay ex doctor turned actor off Arrested Development sprouting what a failure is, but isn't his show should be on the list as well, cos all Americans are too thick to understand this show for a start. Nominated as this nomination is as entertaining as the page itself —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.82.139.5 (talk) 14:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete show me the clear, crystal clear, definition of a flop and we'll talk. — MrDolomite | Talk 16:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Mr.Dolomite — Unfortunately, there might be a variety of definitions for flop, none of them crystal clear. The intro had stated it alright, IMO — "(shows or other entertainment forms) that had high expectations, large amounts of money or widespread publicity, but fell far short of success." That might be the crux of the problem — what one constitutes a "flop" might be a "success" to another, hence the disagreement spoken of. Believe it or not, there may be people out there that thought the Edsel (the poster child for "flop") was a complete success; there's probably some people who think that the non-NFL leagues (i.e., XFL) were successes, although I think that one could easily be verifiable. I think that there are some entries that are verifiable (e.g., newspaper stories detailing a highly anticipated show's sudden cancellation), but the list just seemed to multiply on its own with entries that may or may not actually have been flops. After all, some shows were simply "failures" (e.g., a show that probably was not critically expected to succeed in the first place and didn't), and not all TV shows or other entertainment programs are expected to succeed. That's where the problem with this article lies; this article contains both flops and failures. If this article is re-created, then the article needs to contain only flops and perhaps the spectacular failure (e.g., those shows that were cancelled after one broadcast, such as "You're in the Picture," which is verifiable), but definitely not general failures. The inclusion of general failures made this article a flop, IMO! ;-) [[Briguy52748 14:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)]] (P.S., sorry for the rant, but had to explain everything).[reply]

Neutral The topic has indeed been seriously studied. Consider Ken Mandelbaum's book, Not Since Carrie: Forty Years of Broadway Musical Flops. [1]. We also have a category Category:Entertainment flops. The article is way too long and needs serious re-scoping and cleanup though. Would anyone volunteer to userfy this, give it a clear mandate, and split it into different articles for each entertainment form? Kla'quot 08:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Category:Entertainment flops may only be nomination away from deletion (it has the goals, more shows, and none of the references), if you check its talk page. "Flop" is just not well-defined, and seems POV and non-encyclopedic. - Chip Zero 09:51, 10 February 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.