Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Film and TV

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 All three articles speedy deleted as complete nonsense and hoaxes. cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 14:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shrek 7

Shrek 7 (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

Unapologetic crystal-ball-ism, and as such, violates WP:NOT. This movie has not even been announced as a project; the current movie in the series is Shrek the Third. Since it doesn't exist yet in even a conceptual stage, there's no hope of satisfying WP:V. Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 20:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• While I'm at it, I'd also like to add Shrek 5 and Shrek 6 to the nomination, similar pages created by the same editor. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 20:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Shrek 4 was just announced within the last couple weeks. Articles such as Shrek 7, as well as Shrek 5 and Shrek 6 are nonsense. JPG-GR 20:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Shrek 5, Shrek 6, and Shrek 7 per nom. --Metropolitan90 20:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• "Shrek 7 is unofficial. A release is far from official"'. Delete as externally unverifiable and crystal balling per the article. This nomination may be extended to cover 5, 6, and any articles greater than Shrek 7. -- saberwyn 20:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Lijnema 20:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Shrek 5, Shrek 6, and Shrek 7 per nom. VegaDark 21:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete no brainer WP:NOT violation. JGardner 21:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep all, and go ahead and create Shrek 8, Shrek 9, Shrek 10, Shrek 11, and Shrek 12 as a possible release sometime around the time my great-grandkids are riding around on hoverbikes. That was a joke, of course. Delete. Wavy G 22:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all of the above; the only reason Shrek 4 is around is that it's been announced. Veinor (ヴエノル^(talk)) 23:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

While were at it why not add back the Rocky 45 movie as well ;-)Balloonman 23:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Carpet bomb per nom. If you think it is bad now wait until some fan discovers this article and starts adding the usual speculation and original research. MartinDK 23:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Balloonman (talk • contribs) .
• Speedy Delete all three as nonsense. This never should have made it to AfD, as the original speedy tags were removed by the first author. Geoffrey Spear 00:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete all three. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball (If anybody actually can predict the future, just stick to next week's lotto numbers.) Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 00:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete: As of yet, DreamWorks has said nothing about such productions. Wait patiently until, and if, they cross the bridge. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 00:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all. Crystal ballism to the max man! Whispering 00:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 01:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Şρεęđў ḌèĽėɫë all three. PHDrillSergeant then goes and creates Rocky 43, Final Fantasy XXVXCDX, Mission:Impossible XXV and Devil May Cry 17. ~ PHDrillSergeant...and his couch...§ 02:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• I'm not sure there's any point in piling on at this point...but just in case - Delete.--TheOtherBob 03:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete Seriously, this is still open? Robovski 05:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - As above-K37 06:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, all nonsense, WP:NOT a crystal ball. --Terence Ong _{(C | R)} 12:58, 16 November 2006 (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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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. --Coredesat 21:45, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aaval

Aaval (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

• I've searched the entire net for hours and I have not come across ANY article that provides mention of this film. Also note that all these articles provide the same trivia as Hello Zindagi, Yaaravan Nalam and Ivan Yaaro, that is that these so called "films" are being shot at a budget of Rs. 30 million and these articles have been created on the same day. These articles have also been created in a mere gap of 13 minutes by the same person, which is bound to raise suspicion. I suspect the article has been purposely created - pure fancruft. Therefore, I propose this article be deleted because Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. It also fails WP:V. -- Visual planet 12:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. MER-C 12:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable, non-verifiable. johnpseudo 16:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete > Don't know whether that is அவல், அவள் or ஆவல்  Doctor Bruno  16:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Definite Keep: I have enclosed information by a letter from Madhavan about his projects. This is a e-mail I received from Mr Madhavan himself, a friend of mine. He has confirmed these films. Proof is here. [1] Prince Godfather 16:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• Definite Delete : I'm sorry if I'm being rude but this is utter nonsense. Obviously User:Prince Godfather mistakes us for fools. Firstly, that could have been User:Prince Godfather faking as the actor himself, heck, it could have been anyone. And how in the world would you expect me to believe that the letter that you have brought up has been written by Madhavan himself? The so called proof User:Prince Godfather has provided links to a FANSITE. Don't you think Madhavan has better work to do than to come to Wikipedia and watch us nominating his articles for deletion and then logging on to that fanclub site and emailing User:Prince Godfather with a letter confirming these films?. And why would "he" even provide us with his email address? So that his fans can mob him with fan mails? Sorry, but i'm definitely not buying it! Please provide a more believablebetter reason. You can bring this issue to anyone on Wikipedia and I am sure they would think the same. -- Visual planet 18:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete — The email still doesn't negate the fact that either the director of the film has no verification whatsoever. –- kungming·2 | ^(Talk·^Contact) 01:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - User:Prince Godfather believes us to be morons, obviously. Veinor (ヴエノル^(talk)) 18:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions. -- Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 03:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 03:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Notability found here [2] Prince Godfather 19:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I can see no mention of Aaval in this link. It only mentiones Hello Zindagi. Is this the correct link? GameKeeper 20:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Aaval is the Ram Gopal Varma film as I stressed before. The text is written by Madhavan in a e-mail to his fan club. Prince Godfather 20:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete:Even if the film was mentioned in the link User:Prince Godfather provided, it clearly is untitled and all the information provided on the page would be false. Therefore, it should still be deleted and then re-created when more information surfaces. -- Visual planet 14:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.--Dwaipayan (talk) 10:30, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete-as per all. Nileena joseph ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 16:24, 18 November 2006 (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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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 No consensus. This is the very model of a modern no consensus AfD. Whether this article is kept or merged is a debate that can be held outside of AfD. Deathphoenix ʕ 21:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ernest the Pirate

fairly nn, unfinished/unreleased film. Fails the proposed WP:NOTFILM and gets 48 unique google hits [3]. I like Ernest films as much as the next guy, but this wasn't even finished or released, and would be best left a trivia point on Ernest's main page. Giant onehead 23:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Delete may be notable if sources can be found. As it is, it is probably better to delete, leaving the mention at Ernest P. Worrell. Eluchil404 02:39, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep I think a lost Ernest movie is notable enough to have an article, though the fact that there's so little information about it makes it harder to justify.Zincomog 03:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 13:56, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment, needs WP:V sourcing... but if this is done it could be kept.--Isotope23 15:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, Source and Merge It is never going to be a big article so better to keep but to merge into a bigger article.—Argentino (talk/cont.) 19:54, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge, per Argentino.Ramsquire 23:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Lacks notability. Nonexistence of the subject is an argument against keeping around an encyclopedia article. Certainly the present article doesn't say much and has no verifiable sources. EdJohnston 14:01, 8 October 2006 (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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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 - Yomangani^talk 22:20, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of trivia from Pulp Fiction

A whole article about trivia isn't needed at all. Per WP:TRIVIA, and Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles, this page doesn't belong. RobJ1981 16:18, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Pulp Fiction invites so much trivia (I've indulged in an edit or two myself) that it almost seems like this article should exist as an intentional stopping point on the way for these tidbits headed towards removal. Metaphorically send all the trivia to this article, slam the door shut, ignore any screams you hear. - Richfife 16:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge anything useful and notable back into the original article. Note that WP:TRIVIA does not prohibit trivia sections in articles. What needs to be done is the most important/notable trivia needs to be picked out and, if possible, integrated into the main article text. 23skidoo 16:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Merge. Agree with 23skidoo. Can't decipher Richfife's comments. Please rewrite in clear English.Ward3001 18:02, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Reply I could tell you what I meant, but then I'd have to kill you. - Richfife 06:26, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Reply to Reply I assume, then, that your Delete statement is not to be taken seriously. Ward3001 18:02, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Trivia sections are bad enough in the main articles, never mind giving them separate ones. Integrate and rewrite the most encyclpaedic points into the article, in context, and shoot the rest down in a big lexical blood bath. The JPS^{talk to me} 19:33, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: this "list" was obviously ripped off from the main article with hope to keep the main text clean. Merge it and damage the main text, delete it and the cruft will start to grow in the main article immediatelly. See Category:In popular culture for working examples how to effectively deal with cruft in current structure of Wikipedia. Pavel Vozenilek 23:13, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and consistently remove the trivia from this section. I don't see how "people are going to add it" is a reason to let it stay on site so much as a reason to patrol the main article and ensure it stays clean. GassyGuy 08:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete A lot of this material is available at IMDB's trivia page and doesn't fit in an encyclopedia. Interesting read though.
• Merge: Some of this is relevant to the main page,though a lot of it is garbage.Desdinova 19:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. - Zepheus <ツィフィアス> 05:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete; trivia = trivial = unencyclopedic. I'd suggest merging any relevant information into Pulp Fiction (film), but none of it is referenced. Extraordinary Machine 15:17, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Trivial Delete! Widefox 01:48, 15 October 2006 (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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Sesame Street Grouch characters

Made redundant by List of Sesame Street characters. oTHErONE _(Contribs) 05:48, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. MER-C 06:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. JPG-GR 06:54, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Jpe|ob 07:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 12:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Somewhat grouchy delete. Sorry. PJM 16:05, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, it's already done in considerably more detail. Throw it in the dustbin but try not to knock Oscar unconscious. QuagmireDog 16:32, 3 October 2006 (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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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, this afd wasn't very useful since the only problem brought up was a copyright violation. It's still listed at WP:CP, and might get deleted through that. - Bobet 12:33, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Ergo Proxy episodes

Speedy Delete copyvio from [4][5][6][7][8][9] Godsk 17:27, 7 October 2006 (UTC)— Godsk (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Delete WP:COPYVIO. QuiteUnusual 18:57, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Dytpe 19:18, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions. -- The JPS^{talk to me} 19:35, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete And don't forget to tag those screenshots as orphaned. The JPS^{talk to me} 19:35, 7 October 2006 (UTC) Keep since it's being improved, but those images are not being used in accordance with our fair use policy. The JPS^{talk to me} 10:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

• The images all have fair use rational write-ups for them. When there was / will be content for each episode they will be used in context and related to / significantly contributing to the article. Passes all points of WP:FUC. However, personally, I would choose some more distinguishing images. -- Ned Scott 06:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• Wouldn't it be better to simply remove/rewrite the summaries? Most of the other information isn't really a copyright issue, and most anime articles have either an episode list in the article or a separate article for the episodes (and in the case of Naruto, individual articles for each episode). —TangentCube /c /t  22:46, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. —TangentCube /c /t  22:51, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I was afraid of this when the list got started, as noted here. However, removing the copyvios is a better solution than deleting the list. -- Ned Scott 22:57, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
• Now that I think about it... keep per my comment above. It shouldn't be too hard to rewrite. —TangentCube /c /t  23:01, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I've removed all the summaries so they can be re-written, and I'll keep an eye on the article (hopefully will get some time to write up some summaries myself). -- Ned Scott 23:02, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and continue to fix the article. Dekimasu 10:01, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and rewrite the summaries. —Meidosemme 15:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment see bugzilla:507--Godsk 17:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

If I may ask, what relevance does a nearly-2-year-old discussion on undeleting revisions have to do with the article in question? —TangentCube /c /t  20:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep with remove and rewrite of copyvio summaries. --TheFarix (Talk) 23:58, 10 October 2006 (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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:40, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of notable Star Trek fans

WP:NOT Arutdy 19:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. Valrith 20:04, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Emeraude 20:42, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Or at best beam over to Memory Alpha --Roninbk _{t c #} 20:53, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment license incompatibility issues prevent directly copy and paste to MemAlpha. ColourBurst 21:49, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Highly illogical... --Roninbk _{t c #} 23:19, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. zephyr2k 22:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, don't even get me started. RFerreira 22:25, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless you add this guy. No, for real, delete it. Danny Lilithborne 01:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It seems well-sourced and this is the kind of stuff Wikipedia's good at.--T. Anthony 03:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, quirky article but I'm not convinced by the nominator's arguments. Cedars 11:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete trekfanlistcruft, and most of the entries have no supporting refs, and it conflates real and fictional people, and who cares anyway ? There's no List of notable Jorge Luis Borges fans. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:46, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Borges is a person, not a show, so you can't have a guest appearance. This is admittedly an unencyclopedic topic, but Wikipedia isn't a real encyclopedia so it fits.--T. Anthony 01:18, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

dot dot dot Danny Lilithborne 07:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, inherently subjective Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:46, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete both subjective and useless. We'll have List of notable Green Acres fans next. Eeeek! Carlossuarez46 02:46, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

We do have Category:Science fiction fans and List of notable boxing fans.--T. Anthony 03:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - Whatever its shortcomings, the article is quite useful and informative. RedZebra 09:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - This would make interesting trivia on a Star Trek mainpage, but I assume it's not there for reasons of space/flow. I'd say that it is noteable as there are several people on the list who have since appeared in the series because of their fandom (Tom Morello, Kelsey Grammer, even Stephen Hawking), and the cross-over between fictional series is also noteable - for example, Leonard Nimoy has appeared in the Simpsons, William Shatner, Family Guy, and both plus others in Futurama). If all this information is listed elsewhere on Wikipedia (and it is!) I see no reason to remove this particular list. Curiousbadger 14:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete very few are referenced, and the reasoning for many is shaky at best (for example, does attending a film's premiere automatically make one a fan of the film?) Bottom line: I don't think that tracking who is a fan of what is a reasonable job for an encyclopedia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:14, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Starblind. Hemmingsen 17:48, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per, well, Starblind. Sandstein 21:20, 7 October 2006 (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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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 Merge to List of The Daily Show guests. Deathphoenix ʕ 19:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of notable guests appearing on The Daily Show

I won't contest the main list (at List of The Daily Show guests), but this list is quite non-NPOV and fairly redundant. It's just the inclusion of "notable". Why should these listed be notable and others are not? Aren't most of the guests in general notable enough to be on WP? It just doesn't present a NPOV and is somewhat OR. Giant onehead 04:15, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Merge per nom. MER-C 05:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per nom. *Sparkhead 11:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per nom anything that isn't already duplicated. Agreed this list is a POV fork. 23skidoo 14:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fork list with no real reason to exist. What is being said here that isn't at List of The Daily Show guests? The fact that these people have Wikipedia articles? That could be demonstrated by bluelinks at List of The Daily Show guests. I just don't see the purpose here.--Isotope23 15:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and Merge per above. Ramsquire 00:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and Merge - The list is redundant. George J. Bendo 13:19, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
• Rename & Edit Merging just will crowd up the main article. As I see it's by and large a List of notable political guests on The Daily Show which I think it should be renamed to, being that it's a show of mostly political satire, the political guess are notable if not they shouldn't have articles on wikipedia, anyone missing can be added, as articles are expanded all the time, the small list of "Notable media celebrities and Notable entertainers " could be merged with the main article or just left out completely. it should be merge with List of The Daily Show guests if not already there. --Sirex98 06:15, 6 October 2006 (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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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 AdamBiswanger1 02:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of films generating losses

This list is generated entirely by applying subjective calculations to sparsely available and extremely unreliable figures (and usually performing the stated calculation erroneously). The standard procedure for unsourced, untrue material is to remove it. Since none (zero, a yawning void, the empty set) of the material in this article is sourced, and most of it is untrue — and the article is inherently impossible to source and maintain — the whole thing should be deleted. ➥the Epopt 00:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as impractical list. Since most films make losses (its a hit-driven business), this would include 60-80% of all commercial films globally, throughout cinematic history. Even if you restrict it to Hollywood, the list would be too large Bwithh 00:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Bwithh, this is list-C-word. Danny Lilithborne 01:35, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Egads, that's a bad, unmaintainable, potentially infinite, poorly-conceived list. -- Kicking222 05:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Pavel Vozenilek 10:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Listcruft. The worst losses can be covered on films considered the worst ever. --Kitch ^{(Talk | Contrib)} 12:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Even if it could be sourced, it'd be unmaintainable. — TKD::Talk 00:06, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Seems to be sourced and is useful. It's also different in purpose and design than Films considered the worst ever as some financial failures are not seen as being among the "worst films." That said it needs a cut-off, like the loss should be 75% or more as large as the budget.--T. Anthony 12:24, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete essentially impossible to reliably source either total costs or revenues connected with a film. No predjudice against the creation of z sourced list of films widely considered to be bombs (e.g. Waterworld) as it might be possible to sure these issues when starting over from a blank slate. Eluchil404 23:07, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. A list of box-office bombs is possible, but this isn't it. Perhaps someone could find a reliable source or five that rank the worst film losses of all time. As Bwithh mentioned, this list could theoretically include 60-80% of all films, making it infinitely subjective and inherently POV which films get on the list and which don't. szyslak (t, c, e) 22:17, 9 October 2006 (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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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. - Mailer Diablo 13:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] October Sun Films

Delete, There is no indication that this firm has produced any films that meet the criteria laid out in Wikipedia:Notability (films). Brimba 04:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Delete This is kind of a weird one that brings up a question that's been bopping around in the back of my head for a while. This company and their film "Line in the sand" get a lot of attention in the White Pride / Racism world, but almost none in traditional media. Sooo... Is it notable by standard Wikipedia reliable source standards? No. Should it be included as a part of that world? Maybe. But probably not. - Richfife 05:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. This AFD sounds very familiar too. The JPS^{talk to me} 19:36, 7 October 2006 (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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.