Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/America: From Freedom to Fascism

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. - Mailer Diablo 15:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] America: From Freedom to Fascism

Delete Income-tax protest film that fails Wikipedia:Notability (films). Article carries extensive POV concerning legality/constitutionality of the federal income-tax system that goes beyond what is needed to describe the film. Notable director, but only showed on 10 screens during its theatrical run according to IMDB. Was shown “at Cannes” not that it was part of the Cannes film festival; “Russo actually rented an inflatable screen and showed the film on the beach at the town of Cannes during the time of the film festival.” Did get a NYT article titled “Facts Refute Filmmaker's Assertions On Taxes” But that hardly meets the criteria of: “The film has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the film and its creators/producers.” Page is really being used as a soap-box for someones political views. Brimba 14:15, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: 156000 Ghits. I vote for neither keep nor delete.--Jusjih 14:42, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• STRONG Keep:When I Google the full name in quotes, I get 156,000 hits. When I do a Google News search, I get reviews from Salt Lake City's Deseret News, The Portland (Oregon) Mercury, which seems to mean this flick is just noteworthy enough to entitle it to an article. So let's whack out the POV stuff and keep it. I'll take a whack at it myself.Noroton 21:35, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Post script: I took a quick look at the article as it stands now, and I didn't see any NPOV changes to make, certainly nothing so bad that we have to abolish the article entirely. I expected to see editorializing in the article, and what I find is description. The article also has mention of the Portland Mercury review I mention just above (and the fact that it pans the film), and of a New York Times article. I now think it would be absolutely wrong to get rid of this article: the nominator's reasons are factually incorrect, at least the way the article now looks. Nutty as the film seems to be, it's article-worthy.Noroton 21:47, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

• Reluctant keep. Total bullshit that is being promoted by fraud, but it has been noticed. Gazpacho 23:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This entry helped me personally avoid wasting my time by watching the film. Hopefully it can inform others as well.
• Keep Bad-faith nomination, which doesn't seem to meet any substantive criteria for afd. Ruthfulbarbarity
• Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The entry might have controversial content, however allow readers to decide for themselves. Does this really meet criteria for deletion? HersheyPaProf
• Keep, but remove unencyclopedic content. --Storkk 14:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• Abstention. Obviously, this article is about a film that pushes Tax protester arguments and critiques of the Federal Reserve System, among other things. Unfortunately, the article was created as (or shortly after its creation became) a dumping ground for blatant POV regarding the wacky, extreme minority viewpoints reported to be promulgated by the filmmaker. I and other editors have tried to maintain some balance by pointing out the counter-viewpoints and removing unverifiable statements, etc. An article like this should stay in Wikipedia only if the article continues to present both sides of the debates which are the subjects of the film. This is a tough call. I think if the article meets the Wikipedia criteria for notability for films, it does so just barely. If I had to vote, it would be a reluctant, weak "keep" -- but I am just going to abstain from voting. Yours, Famspear 14:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  • The article can't present things that are not said in the film or in published commentary about it, although it can link to articles that do. Gazpacho 18:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I agree that the arguments presented in Russo's film should be explored-from both sides-in this article, however I don't believe that this article is the proper place for staging another debate over the merits of anti-IRS, anti-income tax thought, especially when the federal income tax is only part of this documentary. Ruthfulbarbarity 19:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Fix the POV. It is definitely noteworthy enough to warrant an article. It is gaining more and more interest online everyday. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayson Virissimo (talk • contribs)
• Reluctant keep. It's been reviewed in ((local)) newspapers everywhere. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• STRONG Keep I can't believe we're even discussing deleting it! --Twizzter 05:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep -- notable. — goethean ॐ 15:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep -- I'm surprised this is being considered for deletion. Needs some content cleaned up and removed, but fully notable. Paul Slocum 17:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep -- It's notable, and doesn't seem very POV. I don't think it should be deleted. - King Ivan 11:16, 12 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.