Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bad movie warning signs

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 delete. -- AllyUnion (talk) 08:51, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Bad movie warning signs

Original research. Neutrality^talk 06:19, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

Delete - inherently incapable of being NPOV. DAVODD 06:35, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. The only objective thing in it is the bit about skipping critic screening, but really that just applies to reliably predict that critics will pan the movie, not that the movie itself is in any objective way "bad". If there's some article somewhere on film criticism, that could be mentioned there. The rest is irredeemibly POV. Postdlf 07:01, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Unencyclopedic, original research, inherently POV , etc. etc. etc. Szyslak 08:39, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Echo all the above comments. I can think of great films that break all of these rules. But I must admit I do have an odd taste in films. Delete. Mgm|^(talk) 08:53, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, mildly amusing fluff, mostly original research and anecdote. Wyss 20:32, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Especially since the category it's in is linked from Wikipedia:Unusual articles. There is a feature article currently in the Christian Science Monitor about Unusual articles. Zanimum 00:19, 2005 Feb 11 (according to history Uncle G 18:30, 2005 Feb 11 (UTC))
I'd like to know where Wikipedia:Original research article warning signs is. Delete. Uncle G 18:30, 2005 Feb 11 (UTC)
Delete. Many reasons, all discussed above. Carrp | Talk 04:12, 15 Feb 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.