Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of box office bombs (2000s)

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. Sandstein 12:28, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of box office bombs (2000s)[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per talk page, far too long to be useful and far too much effort required to restore the article to good quality, as determined by consensus. Onetwothreeip (talk) 12:24, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 August 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:41, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) 12:43, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) 12:43, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons:

Delete all. Questionable lists.. i scanned through several of them and the inclusion criteria seem questionable as many of the films don't really qualify as "box office bombs" as they did respectably or were just low budget films that were never expected to make a lot of money. Contrary to comments made on that article's talk page, a film is not considered a "huge flop" if it doesn't make it's money back in it's theatrical domestic release. Spanneraol (talk) 14:12, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. They are not notable, and the idea of a box office bomb is too subjective for a list here. --Secundus Zephyrus (talk) 14:58, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, too subjective. Not really useful to have these long lists either. Tillerh11 (talk) 17:28, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The topic of "box office bombs" is notable but these lists are WP:INDISCRIMINATE. As Spanneraol rightly points out above, not every film that fails to make its money back on the theatrical run is considered a "bomb". As I stated at Talk:List_of_box_office_bombs_(2000s)#straw_poll, if you view reliable sources on this topic it is the magnitude of the loss that is notable. Betty Logan (talk) 19:06, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think WP:TNT is the right approach to these articles - it's a notable topic but the amount of text, broken references (some of whose breaking has been furthered by bot attempts to fix), and entries that are probably not supported by a reasonable inclusion criteria means that fixing them is a herculean task. I have spent more hours than I care to count trying to fix List of box office bombs (2010s) and it remains an article needing hours more work to have it in good shape. It would be best to start these over and slowly build them up if there is indeed a will to do so. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:06, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Another attempt to put a 'I hate all these films because they're war crimes' lists into an article form here (too many AfD's to cite), only breaking it out by decade to try to spread out the legwork needed to delete, and by cherry-picking sources that mention the magic three words 'box office bombs', when per Spanneraol, most of them were just low cost films that easily broke even on other platforms such as home media and pay-TV. Definitely subjective, and doesn't make mention of business models of the past, like the hilarious Wizard of Oz example where it was re-released multiple times in theaters and made back the budget after the fact. Nate • (chatter) 03:09, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think this presumes a lack of good faith from BornonJune which I have not seen from them in EXTENSIVE discussion on this subject. Also unlike other articles your mentioning there is an abundance of RS which label movies as bombs so in the ideal version of these articles (which as my delete vote notes these are far from) editors need not make any editorial judgments as you imply. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:48, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nothing meant by my vote! outside a tiredness of the 'negative reception' articles being used to push things that had an average reception to most viewers/moviegoers; it's been an issue for a long time, and many of these articles have been deleted. I do not mean this singling out any single editor. Nate • (chatter) 01:55, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The amount of text present is causing my computer and probably others to lag and become slow. This article is too subjective. AmericanAir88 (talk) 19:33, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - appreciate that a lot of effort went into these, but they are all just poorly defined, poorly sourced page-fill. We already have a well-established, well-maintained, comprehensive article; List of box office bombs. WP doesn't need pages and pages listing every. single. film. in the history of cinema that ever failed to even make a dollar's worth of profit. - wolf 00:26, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, the words were copied from other Wikipedia articles, seemingly by some automated program. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:17, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - given the intricacies of Hollywood accounting, nearly all entries in these lists are nothing but speculation. Daß Wölf 03:27, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete all, not a valid criterion for inclusion, the idea is too subjective. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:55, 9 August 2018 (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.