Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Moore Hates America

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archived copy of the deletion debate, which is now closed.

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 VeryVerily (talk · contribs) 15:20, September 6 2004

Wikipedia is not the Coming Attractions. Get back to us when the thing is actually made, okay? DS 23:51, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep. It's generated a media buzz just as is (cf. Talk:Gmail). Also, it's in post-production, so it has actually been made, albeit not released. VV 00:04, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Its main claim to fame seems to be that it's scheduled to be shown at the American Film Renaissance festival, whose website offers Join us for the first and only pro-American film festival in the country. Watch the films you won't see anywhere else. On the evidence so far, this is thinly-veiled promotional material of an unencyclopedic subject, commercial, political or probably a bit of both. But I'm open to changing my vote if some of our many solid contributors with a knowledge of US domestic politics want to make a case for it. Andrewa 23:34, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete it: Obvious delete. The film hasn't been made, is struggling to be made, and is completely unremarkable. Geogre 00:09, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Comment: It does not exist. It is not an existing thing. The buzz it's getting is akin to the Move-on "Hitler ad": an echo chamber. We're not supposed to be part of that echo chamber, not supposed to participate in hype. The title by itself is a rant screamed out at the visitor. If there were a book called "Hitler Was Right" and it got lots of press, would we put it in here before it got published, on the basis of the press it got by being POV? I hope not. Geogre 04:41, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      • If the echoes are loud enough, there's no reason not to include the source of those echoes in the Wikipedia. Yes, I would support an article on a hypothetical upcoming "Hitler Was Right" book, even though it would have gained publicity because of its inherently inflammatory title. True, it gained publicity using cheap and distasteful tactics. But it's not our place to judge a topic unworthy of an article because it's well-known for the "wrong" reasons. To do so would be POV on our part. • Benc • 04:56, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      • Note, though, that the blogosphere means that political stuff like this gets highly elevated Google hits. Also, given the fact that this "title" is a thing that the howlers of the right simply say quite often, what are the hits on the film, versus O'Reiley or Drudge or Coulter just saying the phrase, over and over again? I maintain that this is a tiny bit of spam, and I can't believe that we are editing to make it NPOV and saying that it ought to be kept. If I made a movie called "Liberals are crazy" or "Feminazi," my Google count would be astronomical without anyone talking about my movie. If someone honestly believes that this movie will do even .01 of the business that Moore's film did, then we can say that it's notable in advance. This film is going to vanish like a flushed toilet, IMO. Geogre 17:52, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Anonymous: Uncounted vote. The US presidential race is neck-and-neck; Moore's goal with his latest film is to contribute to Bush's defeat. Here's comes film that aims to undermine Moore's critique. This is all closely enough connected to a world-historic election that I can see scholars a hundred years hence wanting to discuss this film (whether as a failure, or a success, only remains to be seen). 64.229.34.107 00:58, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. After the movie actually comes out, we'll see whether it becomes notable in its own right, or if it is merely a footnote to the phenomenon of Fahrenheit 9/11. Right now, it's the latter if anything. — Gwalla | Talk 00:18, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. There's a lot of talk about it Hexii 00:35, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • This user has made 22 contributions to the encyclopedia.
  • Delete. Promotional spam - we're not here to push pagerank - David Gerard 01:39, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. A search for "Michael Moore Hates America" "Mike Wilson" receives 1,370 hits on yahoo[1] and 1,670 hits on google[2]. The Wikipedia article on The Day After Tomorrow [3] was created six months before the film was released and there is already a fairly sizeable article on Batman Begins. There is already a precedent for creating articles for movies that have not been released yet. Since this is a controversial. subject I also think it is important to point out that, NPOV is not only what we have in articles but which articles we have. -JCarriker 02:26, Aug 14, 2004 (UTC)
    • Indeed; see even Rapunzel Unbraided. VV 05:22, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Comment: See how many of these hits are making fun of it. The "film" was featured on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart as a silly and stupid thing. You know what happens after something political gets on The Daily Show? About a zillion hits result. Same thing that happens when a funny joke is told on The Simpsons or Crank Yankers, and then you add in all the partisans who are outraged at the treatment and/or doing a "ditto". I don't understand why we can't wait and see how poorly this does before having an article that ends up pounding a screed into our site. Geogre 14:14, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Abstain (verbosely). Keep. This is a political time bomb. Maybe the payload turn out to be a knat fart, but for now it's buzzworthy (see above comments), and therefore should be included in Wikipedia the time being. • Benc • 04:03, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • This is an encyclopedia, not a place for "buzzworthy" confusion of gossip. If it might or should only be here "for now" or "for the time being", then it does not belong here at all. If the subject is not appropriate in an encyclopedia of twenty years hence, then it does not belong in an encyclopedia now. - Centrx 20:33, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      • Very good point. (A good enough point to make me change my vote to abstain.) It's a fine line, though: how sure are we that an upcoming, "buzzworthy" event will be notable twenty years from now? The 2004 U.S. election is buzzworthy and the source of much gossip, but it's also a pretty sure bet that it'll be notable in twenty years. On the other hand, buzzworthy == notable until proven otherwise. • Benc • 23:53, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable and will only get moreso (like it or not). -Sean Curtin 04:37, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep the page. Its a legitimate documentary and it is gaining a lot of buzz. When it comes out, it will of course cause a sensation and therefore most definately deserves to have an article on this encyclopedia! Crevaner 06:03, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Anonymous: Uncounted vote. Moore's movie had an article on wikipedia long before it came out. So Michael Moore Hates America should have an article as well. Thinker-X 06:21, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Especially since so many people are starting to talk about it! -- 47Reaver 06:28, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Anonymous: Uncounted vote. [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1182843/posts This film has indeed been completed and therefore is deserving of an article] PureSioux 06:46, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Anonymous: Uncounted vote. Mike Wilson Loves America!
    • I do belive unsigned votes are not counted. -JCarriker 13:24, Aug 14, 2004 (UTC)
  • This article is a manifesto wrapped in a see-through coating of fake NPOV ("purports to be", "according to"). I think it's beyond cleaning up, so delete. Please note that of the four voters immediately above, one is anonymous and three seem to have registered exclusively for the purpose of logging these Keep votes.Bishonen 10:57, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • No article is beyond a clean up. Michael Moore Hates America; isn't the first propaganda piece wikipedia has an article on and it won't be the last. -JCarriker 13:24, Aug 14, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'm on record as against any articles on "future products" Wikipedia:What's in, what's out#Products and would welcome participation by others in refining a formulation of policy on this. Factual material about what Moore has said about the project, or comments, articles, information, and facts about the work in progress are perfectly legitimate material—within other articles, such as Michael Moore or Mike Wilson. But a not-yet-existent movie should not be the topic of an entire article, and definitely not an article that begins "Michael Moore Hates America is ..." The big problem with any such article is that it is unverifiable. We do not know yet whether the movie will actually be completed or released, or, most important, whether it will be notable. Creating an article about it now gives it an importance it does not deserve and seems to me to be promotional in effect, if not in intent. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 12:20, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • I'd be happy to work with you on a policy. However I cannot support any retrospective legislation.-JCarriker 13:24, Aug 14, 2004 (UTC)
      • Intimations against ex post facto rules make no sense in a persistent encyclopedia. The policy proposed would not apply only to the very creation of the page, rather the article must follow it at all times. Such a policy implemented would not exclude pages that have been created before the policy was created. - Centrx 22:36, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete unreleased film. The fact that we failed to delete other articles pre-release does not mean we should perpetuate the mistake. Rossami 12:31, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • No, but it would reflect a change in policy and as such articles such as Batman Begins and Rapunzel Unbraided would, as a matter of neutrality, also be subject to listing at Vfd.-JCarriker 13:24, Aug 14, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is an encyclopedia, not a place for "buzzworthy" folderol or statements of unconfirmed, "apparent" facts. The essence of the article is currently unverifiable statements from the director, who is not a neutral party. Such statements belong in the article for the director, not in an article about an unreleased film. Also, much of the information is subject to change, because the film is not yet released. - Centrx 20:33, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

A news report. Wikipedia should not offer news reports on breaking stories. But of course creating encyclopedia articles on topics currently in the news is an excellent idea. See current events for some examples. (However, the Wiki process lends itself to collaborative, up-to-the-minute construction of current events of historical significance, as long as these are written as encyclopedia articles.) When updating articles with recent news, authors should use the past-tense in such a way that the news will still make sense when read years from now.

The article doesn't fit these guidelines. It reads like a news story, even after an attempt to POV it from the blatently propagandist puff-piece first laid down anonymously. Google now gets 1660 hits for the film. But that is still not a good response for something supposedly generating lots of "media buzz". But I don't think "media buzz" is a particularly appropriate guideline for Wikipedia. Most of the hits seem to be talk on blogs. A search on Google News gets only 8 references. A search on Google Groups gets only 98 hits. Not notable now. It may never be notable enough for a separate article. I get tired of the idea that any submitted material no matter how biased or badly written should be kept because, in theory, it could be cleaned up. Clean it up at once, or lose it, and don't encourage more of it. There's too much embarrassing garbage on Wikipedia already that needs cleaning up. In accordance with current policy, delete all news reports about future media releases. People who want to hype media before it is released should be encouraged to do so away from Wikipedia. People who want up-to-date news information on the "buzz" about future media releases shouldn't be looking in an enyclopedia. Jallan 20:54, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Comment: This was prominently featured on IMDB.com a few weeks ago (the "lead article", if you will, of the site's front page). -Sean Curtin 00:45, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: There does not seem to be an article yet for Mike Wilson. There is a reasonable case that there should be one. Getting featured on imdb.com is notability enough for that. The article on Mile Wilson could include all sorts of neutral, accurate, NPOV statements such as the fact that he says he's making this film, the fact that the story was featured on imdb, what people are saying about it, and so forth, as long as it doesn't grossly violate the policy that "Wikipedia is not a news report." None of this justifies an article about the nonexistent film itself. It's possible that the best course is "move article to Mike Wilson and then clean up." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 02:56, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • I second that the current article should be moved to Mike Wilson, so long as it is noted that there are other films that have not yet been released that have articles. A move to Mike Wilson, eliminates the NPOV arguement envolved with deleiton, as it simply moves information ad does not delete it. T've also had much more success finding criticism of Wilson than his film. This soultion would satisfy my concerns with the article. -JCarriker 03:20, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep: Clean up for NPOV. When and if it becomes big, more info can be added. Is Moore really a "political figure"? Saopaulo1
    • comment: Since he's famous for his involvement in politics (albeit primarily as an outside commentator), calling him a political figure seems justified. — Gwalla | Talk 21:18, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. But it should be an article about the film not Moore.pir 16:31, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Let's keep Wikipedia worthy to be an encyclopedia. JoJan 21:51, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. If Wikipedia allows pages to be created for non-political movies before they are released, I see no reason why it should not allow pages to be created in advance for movies with a political slant. In short, Fahrenheit 9/11 had its own Wikipedia page quite a while before it was released, so by the same rules the page of a forthcoming movie/documentary critcising Moore should stay. To delete this one whilst not having deleted the Fahrenheit 9/11 page would be blatant POV on our side. The only way this should be deleted is if the question of whether Wikipedia should feature movies that have yet to be released is resolved in favour of not featuring any upcoming movies, and all pages on upcoming movies are therefore deleted. Impi 22:06, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep: As it is, the page is little more than a stub, but once the movie is released, it will become filled out. Moore is a political figure (witness his appearances at the DNC), not just a filmmaker (anymore). A film about him is a film about US politics. The controversy around Moore's films is itself a social phenomenon worthy of comment, and that is this film's subject matter (if I understand correctly). If the film turns out to suck, well, that will go in the article too (in proper NPOV language, of course!) Failing that, I agree with Impi that all films (political or otherwise) should be treated the same. Klanda 22:17, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • This user has 66 edits. Fuzheado | Talk 07:54, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • KEEP! It's worth keeping. User:Pitchka 15 Aug 2004
    • This user has 69 edits. Fuzheado | Talk 07:52, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Pitchka's vote at WP:RFA has already been nullified under the suspcion of beign a sockpuppet. -JCarriker 14:50, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Agree with Impi and others above. Taco Deposit 02:52, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)
    • FYI, this user has 149 edits 16 August 2004. Fuzheado | Talk 02:21, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • This user has been at wikipedia since April 18, 2004 and has a diverse and steady edit count [4]. The user first voted on Vfd on Jun 18. -JCarriker 08:49, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)
      • This has already been discussed. [5] You posted my edit count, I asked how many edits a user must have before his votes should be counted, JCarriker replied, and Centrx blanked the discussion. Fuzheado, please stop challenging the legitimacy of my vote. Taco Deposit 04:20, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)
        • Fuzheado is not questioning the legitmacy of your vote, he is only providing information to let other user make up their mind. (Notice he hasn't voted on the issue). As for Centrx, I have asked him about the deletion. I am sure it was a mistake. I realize that you still are learning about the community, if you need any help you can contact me on my talk page. -JCarriker 08:45, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Cookiecaper 09:01, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • FYI, this user has 113 edits 16 August 2004. Fuzheado | Talk 02:21, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • This user joined two days prior to this post and has fewer than 100 contributions to the encyclopedia. - Centrx 22:36, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. I was close to abstaining, but the prevalence of so many sockpuppets has forced me to vote against them. Ambi 12:30, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Ambi, is there anyone specific you'd like to accuse of being a sockpuppet? And why? Klanda 14:26, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Please don't vote because of the actions of sockpuppets. For all we know the sockpuppets may want you to vote delete, and are intetionally flooding the this vote to make one side look bad. I hope you will rethink your vote and consider the merits of both arguements, rather than voting on the actions of a few nefarious users. -JCarriker 14:50, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. (And I've never seen sockpuppets act intelligently enugh to try reverse psychology.) - UtherSRG 01:16, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • I will concede that I haven't seen it yet either. However, it is a possibility if not an eventuality. I strongly believe that votes should be made on the merits of users arguements and the content of the article and not what people who are trying to manipulate the system are doing. The best policy with sockpuppets is to ignore them, and expose them if possible. BTW way it's not a matter of intelligence, it is a logical conclusion See: Newton's Third Law-JCarriker 04:37, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Pieces of it could go to Michael Moore article and/or articles about his movies. Most of the article is either information belonging elsewhere or prediction/speculation. BTW, I second UtherSRG about sockpuppets, see Occam's Razor. And for Ambi's approach, I can see unethical people pushing one way to become a motivation for me to push the other way. ato 01:52, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Occam's Razor is a very interesting read. However, we shouldn't let unethical people's decisions govern ours. If I let my opinion about a presedntial candidate be soured by every party hack that drags the others' name through the mud there wouldn't be anyone in any party to vote for. -JCarriker 04:37, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)
      • I was simply trying to say that it is likely that sockpuppets would be voting to change the outcome towards what they are voting for, rather than trying to apply reverse pscyhology. For the record, I am not calling anybody sockpuppet, I am not that experienced in Wikipedia. ato 06:41, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
        • I understand what you were saying, and I don't think you have to worry about calling people a sockpuppet. Its obvious that there are sockpuppets on the page. My concern is that some wikipedians are letting sockpuppets influence their vote. I think that is a very dangerous precedent, one that could easily be exploited by sockpuppets in the future, if at present. I disagree that it is anything more than equally likely. Sockpuppets are by their very nature sneaky, and it really doesn't take a keen intellect to grasp the concept of reverse psychology. -JCarriker 07:55, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. If current trends continue sockpuppets will soon out-number editors. --Gene_poole 05:05, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Of course! It is my firm belief that each contributors should have at least two sockpuppets of his or her very own. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em. Woolysock 07:24, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • I'm pretty green to Wikipedia still, so I'm not too clued-up on the whole issue of sockpuppets, but the way I see it, the only option is to ignore them. We should be debating the merits of the question of keeping this article here, not responding to sockpuppets and allowing them to influence our decisions. Decisions on whether or not to keep articles on Wikipedia should be based entirely on sound reasoning and logic, and not on a desire to vote the opposite to whichever sockpuppets are popping up. That's just petty. I stand by my original point, if we delete this, we delete all pages on films that have yet to be released. Remember, Fahrenheit 9/11, another politically slanted film, had an article on Wikipedia for months before release. Impi 10:33, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • ... if we delete this, we delete all pages on films that have yet to be released. Remember, Fahrenheit 9/11, another politically slanted film, had an article on Wikipedia for months before release. That statement is absolutely true. Deleting this article will be a clear case of political bias. Crevaner 10:39, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Deleting this article is most certainly not a clear case of political bias, nor does it necessitate the deletion of all films that are yet to be released. The reasons presented for its deletion have nothing to do with the political alignment of the film. Rather, they are based around the film's notoriety, the presence or absence of encyclopedic information about the film, and the condition of the article. Both immediately prior to its release (June 23, 2004) and as much before that release as we are for this vfd film (May 27, 2004), there was far more NPOV, encyclopedic information in the article for Fahrenheit 9/11 (F911) than there is for the article Michael Moore Hates America (MMHA). The major part of the MMHA article is based around statements by the director and has far less concrete and productive information than did the F911 article. Remember that there was a very public controversy regarding F911's distribution with Disney and also that the movie won the Palme d'Or at the Cannes Film Festival (the first documentary to do so since 1956). Either of those alone makes the film and its article more notable than the MMHA film and article and provide bunches of information from neutral and various sources that can be used in the article, including statements and data from people who have actually seen it, for it had been publicly shown at the film festival. - Centrx 23:36, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      • We should likely keep this article - it has been mentioned on CNN and highlighted by a number of conservatives on television, and it has been the butt of a Daily Show segment. However, here is an unusual NPOV technique - the length of the resulting article should be commensurate with the influence of the movie in the public. The F9/11 article is long and detailed because, as Centrx mentioned, it has been in the public debate, it has set box office records, it has been under much scrutiny and the director Michael Moore is a high profile movie maker who has appeared on network television, the DNC, O'Reilly Factor, etc. For MMHA, depending on how much play it gets (and right now it's just a single film festival) we should ensure the article reflects that. It should not turn into a soapbox to highlight a laundry list gripes against Moore. In short, Wikipedia should reflect reality, not create its own reality. Fuzheado | Talk 04:17, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. 67.40.112.223
  • Keep. Film will only get more notable, as was said above. Yelyos 16:20, Aug 18, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable. --Xed 13:49, 6 Sep 2004 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Michael_Moore_Hates_America&oldid=1138077556"