Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fifty-nine Deceits in Fahrenheit 9/11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia is NOT a soapbox!! Livajo 17:16, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. The title already is POV. Gzornenplatz 17:19, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)
    • I believe that Michael Moore is the most loathsome, deceitful and traitorous worm on the face of this or any other planet. That being said, delete this enormous and raving POV rant. It's completely unsalvageable. - Lucky 6.9 17:30, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Although there are flaws in the movie, and this article discusses them, it presents the facts in such a way as to imply that Fox news does NOT have biased reporting. This is the network that could not win a lawsuit to award the network the rights to the phrase "fair and balanced" and which was was "laughed out of court" when it tried. This article needs so much work to bring it to Neutral Point of View, that is would be more fruitful to start with the stub: "Fahrenheit 9/11 was a movie. Because of it's nature it is always shown in the dark"Pedant 17:35, 2004 Aug 26 (UTC)
  • Delete. As well as the POV problems already pointed out, I'm fairly certain I've seen this before, and it may be a copyvio. - Satori 17:39, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)
  • note: Original source here says "You may also photocopy the full text of this report if you give it away for free." (note this text isn't the unencumbered summary mentioned on that page). Thus, unless Kopel submitted the doc itself (of which there's no indication), this is incompatible with the GFDL. So this should be listed on Wikipedia:Copyright problems. — Finlay McWalter | Talk 17:41, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Not a copyvio because it comes from here [1] where the author gives permission to copy (though a lawyer might want to argue about some of the restrictions). However it is massively POV. Delete. DJ Clayworth 17:50, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, but salvage a link to the original page, and put that link on both the George W. Bush page and on the John Kerry page. We shouldn't loose the ability to find this valuable and heretofore unknown information. KeyStroke
  • Delete. There is already a link to this worthy essay from Fahrenheit 9/11. In context, this page is merely a sophisticated form of Kidi Wiki—done with no understanding of what Wikipedia is about. I bet we all have a couple of papers that we would like to upload verbatim into similarly earth-shaking and inflammatory Wikipedia titles. :)) — Rednblu 18:13, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. POV rant, inflammatory title. — Gwalla | Talk 18:54, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. POV rant. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Binadot 18:56, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. My eyes! The goggles, they do NOTHING!! Way too long, POV. Terrapin 19:01, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • KEEP. It's only telling the truth! — Crevaner 19:03, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Thanks for alerting me. Now onto scanning for POV every one of your edits you've ever made. Terrapin 19:41, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • If truthfulness was the only criteria to keep, 95% of the VfD'd entries would be kept. POV, copyvio, Delete. Plutor 19:48, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • oh boy is the right-wing US establishment good at indoctrinating its people. delete. Dunc_Harris|☺ 20:10, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • POV, poorly written, non-encyclopedic, and an inappropriate title on top of everything else- delete. -FZ 20:37, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: It's not telling the truth! (POV, advocacy, polemic, not notable, borrowed fame.) Geogre 21:37, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete please. Fire Star 00:00, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • But it's only telling the truth! Just like "The world is flat" and "Saddam Hussein is a very nice man." Delete this POS POV POS rant. The User Formerly Known As 82.6.10.139 00:52, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC) PS, surely it qualified for being a speedy as patent nonsense
    • Comment: Nope, the definition of patent nonsense is quite specific. This article is a very good example of bullet two of the section "not to be confused with". It may be irredeemably POV and therefore deletable but it does not qualify for a speedy. Rossami 02:19, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Definitely not patent nonsense. Go to the special pages, then New Pages and look at all the new articles written by IP's. It won't take you more than :20 to see what "patent nonsense" is. Don't get me wrong: this article is untrue and definitely POV and someone trying to get us to host a political polemic, and there's no way anyone but a hardcore ideologue with no regard for our policies would support keeping it, I think (sorry if I insult anyone in the process, but I really think this), so it's a more of a slam dunk of a loser on VfD than the slam dunk of WMD in Iraq, but it's not patent nonsense. Geogre 02:38, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. LegCircus
  • Delete. This is certainly interesting, but is completely biased from the beginning and worst of all, is almost completely unreadable, a solid wall of text. I agree with others, put the external link on the Fahrenheit 9/11 page. Saint will 21:14, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not only is there already an external link on the Fahrenheit 9/11 page (see Fahrenheit 9/11#Articles about the film content and accuracy), but that article also has an overly long section going into great detail about a host of attacks that have been made on the film (Fahrenheit 9/11#Controversy about the film's content). In fact, that section goes into so much detail that it should probably be spun off as a daughter article. Regardless of whether it's moved or not, it covers the subject area in approximately NPOV fashion, with pro- and anti-Moore editors having contributed to it. The "59 Deceits" piece, by itself, is not so outstanding, amidst the torrent of criticism of Moore, as to warrant a separate article. JamesMLane 12:57, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Taco Deposit | Talk-o Deposit 15:11, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • Perhaps somebody should also look at Bush_family_conspiracy_theory Wodan
  • Delete. for good reasons given by JamesMLane. Also, could go in Wikisource if copyright questions were adequately addressed. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 23:11, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete before I have to kill someone. — [[User:33451|Mr. Grinch (Talk)]] 18:53, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. One of the most obvious examples of raging POV I've ever seen on Wikipedia. Not fixable, since its POV is its whole point. Antandrus 19:13, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Total rewrite required (delete). As much as I disagree with many of the points, and the views of the person who wrote it, I do think Wikipedia should have an article on the essay. It seems to be of some significance. As an example, Swedish student organization tied to the liberal/conservative party (depending on who you ask) has translated the essay into Swedish and published at http://www.finn59fel.com/. It is being pushed heavily now and has been noted in some media outlets (some negative, others positive). Including the whole essay in Wikipedia is definitely not acceptable though. David Remahl 19:20, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - agree with JamesMLane's rationale given above. -- The Anome 07:07, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Fifty-nine_Deceits_in_Fahrenheit_9/11&oldid=357516894"