Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of movies generating losses

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. The keeps and deletes are split pretty evenly right down the middle, however nearly everyone (including most of the delete voters) seems to agree that the topic is notable, but the majority of the list entries are inappropriate or derive from original research. In this case, deleting the article won't accomplish much, as the article will likely be re-created in a few months. Therefore, I would like to see a discussion started on the talk page of the article to determine clear inclusion criteria for the list, and once that has been decided the list must be cleared of entries that don't meet the criteria. -Scottywong | yak _ 17:35, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of movies generating losses

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

Firstly, this list is a new version of essentially the same article, which was deleted in September, 2009. The current iteration was created just over a month later. As I've outlined on the articles talk page, this isn't a list of notable box office bombs with outside references naming them as such or outside analysis that points to failure - it is a list of movies, their production and sometimes marketing budgets and theatrical grosses on a table with the difference between those two sets of numbers presented as the 'loss'. This is clear WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. We have no idea if these movies actually generated losses since this list only takes theatrical distribution into account, or if so, losses for whom, since often times multiple studios and distributors share the burden of cost - for example MGM posted a loss on The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, while other studios/distributors involved apparently made it into the black. It also relies on editors here to do math that's often based on incomplete or inaccurate numbers. If the article isn't deleted outright, I'd recommend a massive scale cleanup/rewrite to include only films that are notable for losing money, with outside sources backing up both statements, not just films that didn't gross more than their purported budgets. Williamsburgland (talk) 15:57, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick update - it looks like the deleted article I linked above was the second instance of this type of list being deleted - another was deleted in 2006 for roughly the same reasons. --Williamsburgland (talk) 16:07, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lastly - there's an old discussion on the Biographies of living persons notice board (old version linked). --Williamsburgland (talk) 16:16, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It looks like the last deletion discussion contains the same type of vote that I am thinking of right now ("yes, no, maybe, kind of"). I would say Keep the list if there can be an established criteria for what makes the list (an agreed upon criteria). I believe that is Williamsburgland's main contention is that you can basically source anything from anywhere and put a movie on the list (forgive me, Williamsburgland, if I misunderstand your contention. As there is really no method of determining what makes the list, then it should be deleted. Not voting, just food for thought. --Morning277 (talk) 18:43, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If kept, it should have the word "films" in the title, not movies. Lugnuts (talk) 18:50, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Response - Morning - That's fairly accurate (in terms of what I'm trying to say), but my biggest gripe with the article is that it cites no outside sources that state that any of the films on it lost money - it simply presents their cost (which may or may not be accurate), their grosses and presents the difference as a loss. That's OR/SYNTH if you ask me. At any rate, I appreciate your input and I hope it will continue to foster discussion on this topic Lugnuts - I agree with this statement. --Williamsburgland (talk) 18:56, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The whole concept seems to be made up, and fairly meaningless. Even before home video movies where shown on TV and there were also sometimes spin-off products. And yes, producers and investors were smart enough to take that into consideration. Kitfoxxe (talk) 19:18, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also confident that The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo will do fine on DVD. Everyone's heard of it. It just wasn't a good date movie. Kitfoxxe (talk) 19:20, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hollywood accountants are notorious for obfuscating matters so that it's impossible for outsiders to figure out the actual financial status of films. Exhibit A: Buchwald v. Paramount. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:58, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rewrite as list of movies with biggest losses. This is a notable topic[1][2][3][4][5][6][7] --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:39, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The topic of movies that lose large amounts of money is a notable topic (box office bomb). I see this article was actually was titled List of biggest box office bombs until it was moved a few months ago. Consider that this pages notes Alexander, which grossed $167,000,000 on budget/marketing cost of $201,000,000. That is, it made 83% what was spent to make and market the film, which hardly classifies it as a bomb. That is why I think it would be nice to have a (high?) specific threshold for this page, so only the biggest bombs would be listed here. Canuck^{89 (chat with me)} 13:27, June 20, 2012 (UTC)
- Response I agree with the bulk of what both of you are saying - it's certainly a notable topic, and I'm working on a rewrite of the Box office bomb article right now to focus the definition of failure, rather than just saying 'if it doesn't earn back it's budget in box office receipts its a bomb', which is fairly ridiculous. While the article should be fairly easy to rewrite, this list is another story. It needs a complete overhaul, every single entry needs a ref like the one Colapeninsula used (I actually added that to the BOB article yesterday), and we should remove the Budget - Gross = Loss format since its OR. --Williamsburgland (talk) 14:04, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I agree that the films in this list have nothing to do with losses according to Hollywood accounting. However the list was initially nothing more than an extension to the article Box office bomb, and the movies on this list was selected according to this definition. Somebody a couple of months ago changed the title of the article from List of biggest Box office bombs, to List of movies generating losses, and made the list completely confusing. I believe that if the list is going to be kept, it should be clearly based in a well-defined term. The old article which was deleted in 2009 was not in accordance to the wikipedia definition, since it used only US revenues and not worldwide revenues in the film data. Clicklander (talk) 15:04, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the confusion over the article title change, but at the time there were problems reliably verifying a films losses were "biggest" and how to clearly define what a "box office bomb" was, so "List of movies generating losses" was a compromise stop-gap solution. That said, if there was consensus on the criteria for "box office bomb" (e.g. those that have been noted as bombs by secondary sources, per Colapeninsula) then a title like Notable Box office bombs might fit a severely pruned list. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:50, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response I agree with this notion; it would just be a fairly large undertaking, but I think Clicklander's original intention was a far better project than what exists today. --Williamsburgland (talk) 18:54, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This list has always been problematic and will remain so until we determine some real inclusion criteria. There are plenty of films that actually make a ton at the box office, but lose money by not overcoming their costs at the box office. Additionally, there are many films that lose money for their studios even when they take in more than their production and marketing costs, as the revenues must be split with the distributors, but these are excluded here. Additionally, the list doesn't take into account other ways films can make money such as video/DVD rentals and sales. And even if we overcame all this, as others have said, Hollywood accounting still obfuscates what films actually cost and earn. The topic is notable generally, but this current iteration is extremely problematic.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:38, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a notable topic list but improve with specific reasonable finite criteria, and then a change in title to go with that if necessary. KTC (talk) 19:46, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal So why not rename the article List of Notable Box Office Bombs and go through it with a fine tooth comb to remove uncited entries. I also suggest the table/formula is removed and replaced with some kind of short summary for each film, like director, cast, studio and reason it's notable. --Williamsburgland (talk) 16:03, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename setting some clearer criteria, as suggested by Williamsburgland and Colapeninsula. Cavarrone (talk) 16:34, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename, restructure and edit per Williamsburgland. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:41, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Off Topic I can't Believe Mad City is on that list - that's my favorite film ever... :( Oh and Keep and severely prune so that all that remains is clearly identifiable to a source. A rejig of the scope of the article probably wouldn't go amiss in this regard either 90.216.118.113 (talk) 19:37, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am ok with renaming as Williamsburgland proposed, however if you remove the formula there will be no way to order the films and have an indication for the size of the failure in the box office. Perhaps we should rather keep the formula and put a threshold in order to eliminate the small bombs. Additionally it might be a good idea in the beginning of the article to mention that this formula is just an indication for the size of the bomb and has nothing to do with the actual studio losses, so that there will be no misunderstandings.Clicklander (talk) 20:55, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Response Again, the formula is a major issue for me - its inherently OR. The difference between gross and budget isn't an indication of profit or loss - either can be much more or much less depending on a variety of factors, and it's highly unlikely that anyone can find even remotely accurate numbers to that effect. My suggestion is to utilize outside sources like the ones used in the Box Office Bomb article that specifically name bombs and describe why they're notable. We could also include a notes section for losses, if they're available, or for short summaries - for example - a Disney boss was apparently fired/resigned in the wake of John Carter. That's notable and verifiable and in no way OR (again, because there are a number of reliable sources out there). --Williamsburgland (talk) 13:27, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- To my understanding, it is not the loss that makes a bomb, but its unsuccessful performance in the box office compared to the initial investment and therefore the studio´s expectations for the box office. According to the definition: ¨To earn this distinction, the film must also fail to earn more than the reported cost of its production, distribution and marketing by a wide margin¨. I do not see any other way to determine and classify a bomb than this formula with the difference between gross (box office sales) and budget (production+distribution+marketing). I agree that the formula isn´t an indication of profit or loss, however it is an indication of a bomb. I am not sure that the use of the formula consists OR as long as that definition of the bomb itself implies the use of this formula.Clicklander (talk) 15:26, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That's actually my verbiage, and the key word would be also, meaning there are other criteria that must be met. At any rate, the way to classify a film as a bomb without the formula would be to A) Find verifiable, reliable sources calling it such, and/or B) Finding a reliable source stating that it lost a great deal of money. If it brings us to the same conclusion that the formula would, great - OR isn't necessarily erroneous, but it's still not allowed. Take, for example, the practice of adding production budget to marketing cost. This could be a fallacy in and of itself since we have no idea who spent that money. ABC studio might have sold distribution rights to 123 Distributors for X amount with a stipulation that 123 pay for Y amount of marketing (and that's just one scenario)... if the movie bombed, would you be able to tell me who lost how much money based on the formula on the page? Again, I suggest a list of movies, heavily cited, and if any of them have ref's that state how much they lost, then by all means include it... otherwise I say leave numbers out. --Williamsburgland (talk) 15:45, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I gotta agree that using a formula to judge a film's earnings/losses as the criteria for inclusion is OR, unless the formula is a widely accepted industry or commercial standard. What makes a notable bomb a notable bomb is that a secondary source has characterized it as such. Cheers, - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:26, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The current list is original research. all the debtate about what this list could be is really advocating for a different list and not this list. -- Whpq (talk) 16:57, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice to the recreation of a non-OR article. There is agreement that the current content violates WP:OR, a core policy. As Whpq notes, the "keep" opinions argue that what we should have is a completely different article with a different title and different content. This means we can delete this one and all are free to write a policy-compliant new article. Sandstein 05:42, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but delete some elements of the article. There should be only 50 films in the list. J4lambert (talk) 18:27, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Question - If kept, why should the list be limited to 50? -- Whpq (talk) 20:07, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I wondered that myself. My feeling is that any such list should include any and all notable box office bombs; though I suspect that number will be below 50. Clicklander - do you have the bandwidth to perform a rewrite of the article? If so, I am up for assisting. We could sandbox a template out and do a rewrite if you like. --Williamsburgland (talk) 21:52, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or move and rewrite. As it currently stands, the article is OR and almost certainly wrong. You can't deduce losses from the very limited information available. If the article is going to stay, it need to be about box office performance only, since that is the only thing we can find data for. It also shouldn't try to calculate losses, since they are meaningless without knowing all the costs and all the revenues. If we need a metric to order them by (can we not just use alphabetical order?), I suggest box office revenue as a percentage of production costs. It's not a meaningful accounting ratio, but it gives a general idea of how big a bomb it was (it ignores the fact that different films have different levels of non-production costs and non-box office revenues, but at least its something). There is still an issue of inclusion criteria, though. I'd like to base it on whether reliable sources have described the film as a box office bomb (that's in keeping with our standard policies on inclusion), but different reliable sources use such vastly different definitions (and often don't really have a set definition) that it doesn't really work. For that reason, my preference would be to delete the article. --Tango (talk) 23:36, 27 June 2012 (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.