Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Controversies over the film Sicko

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 closed. We can call it a procedural close in the sense it was never opened correctly to begin with; the nominator did not intend this to be a deletion discussion and seems to misunderstand the purposes of WP:AFD. The existence of this discussion has no bearing, in terms of timing or otherwise, to any possible subsequent deletion discussion started on this article (so no speedy closing any actual deletion nomninations becauise this one was only x weeks ago). Neil ム 11:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Controversies over the film Sicko

Controversies over the film Sicko (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This is a procedural nomination in the sense that I created the article and want to keep it. I made a mistake in letting a group of editors at the Sicko article vote to merge it into that article when, in fact, an AfD discussion is the appropriate venue. (From what I've seen in Wikipedia guidelines, mergers are appropriate for small articles, whereas this one is almost 20KB long and merger essentially amounts to deletion.) I just resurrected the article now in order to have this AfD discussion.

REASONS TO KEEP: Wikipedia has numerous articles on controversies. (see Category:Controversies which has 57 articles and eight subcategories; also see another controversy article about a Moore movie, Fahrenheit 9/11 controversy). This one is notable in that nearly every magazine, newspaper or other organ of opinion in the United States has commented on the movie -- outside of film reviews, which have also commented on controversial aspects of the movie. I don't think there can be any doubt that the subject is notable. This is not a POV fork in any sense: The article painstakingly presents Moore's POV as well as a range of others on various points and adheres to Wikipedia guidelines about presenting different points of view. Responsible sources are used (New York Times, New Republic, National Review, American Prospect, etc, etc, etc,). If anyone in this discussion calls this article a POV fork, they'd damn well better be prepared to say why or I'm going to accuse them of not reading it. (See Wikipedia:Content forking section "What content/POV forking is not". From the "Articles whose subject is a POV" subsection:

Different articles can be legitimately created on subjects which themselves represent points of view, as long as the title clearly indicates what its subject is, the point-of-view subject is presented neutrally, and each article cross-references articles on other other appropriate points of view.

Commentators are all over the map when it comes to the movie, and the article reflects various shades of opinion as well as points where a good number of commentators are in consensus.

There is a small criticisms section in the Sicko article, but the subject of criticism/controversy deserves much more space in its own article because (a) health insurance is said to be either the top or one of the very top domestic issues in the presidential campaign; (b) Sicko has brought the issue to millions of Americans and others, far more than any opinion article, magazine piece, TV special or other media piece, and the movie is widely expected to influence the debate; (c) the movie is by Michael Moore, who can be expected to be in the middle of controversies in the future just as he's been in the past, and the article about this controversy is likely to be of lasting interest at least as long as other controversy articles in Wikipedia; (d) the movie is likely to be the source of just about all the knowledge many foreigners have (and many Americans have) of the U.S. and other healthcare systems. Even if this article is considered a "criticism of" article, that subject itself is of proven notability, given the attention paid by numerous reliable sources, as cited in the article; (e) controversy over the movie has generated more reliable sourcing than on most political controversies covered in Category:Political controversies.

BACKGROUND: The Sicko article has been the subject of constant, mindbogglingly long disputes over content, and I believe a number of editors are, surprise, surprise, pushing POV. The early, lengthy discussion on the talk page were mis-archived (does someone know how to fix that?) but the most relevant discussion about the article appears in the Talk:Sicko "Neutrality" section at 24 June 2007 (the merger discussion follows) and at the talk page for this article. Noroton 19:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep "criticisms" spinouts are standard practice for length issues, of course we must be mindful of POV forks but as long as the title isn't inherently POV that's not an AfD issue. In future please limit the length of your nominations (and consider revising it now). Eleland 20:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry, but I just can't do that. This length is unusual, but I expect this to be controversial, and then I'd have to say it all anyway. Best to get it all together, I think. I really do sincerely apologize for the inconvenience, and if I thought I could do it another way, I would. Noroton 21:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep If it can't be incorporated in the main article, then it should be accorded one of it's own. No doubt, the films by Mr. Moore are highly controversial and a subpage may be needed to do more than just a standard movie review.--MONGO 21:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Trim, merge & delete - As per agreement. We have already been through this on Sicko talk. The consensus was that criticisms be trimmed and merged with the main page. User:Noroton refuses to accept the decision. [1] smb 00:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Additional comment - Reasons (a) (b) One cannot justify a lengthy criticism page on the basis that said film is igniting a policy debate. It has already been suggested to Noroton that perhaps this warrants a Debate over United States healthcare policy in the 2008 election article or a Sicko and the United States healthcare policy debate article. Not a criticism article. (c) Nor can one serious adduce Michael Moore -- his previous work, and his future work! -- as de facto justification for a criticism page on Sicko; the implicit assumption being Moore is controversial by design and he always will be. Well, perhaps, but then we already have a Michael Moore controversies page. (d) This is POV pushing of the worst possible kind. Noroton is openly concerned that "foreigners" might watch Sicko and get the wrong impression about US health-care. Presumably people need a handy rebuttal page to set them straight. (e) This is the only argument we should be concerned about. Is there enough pointed criticism of the subject matter to justify a criticism page about the subject matter? Please resist attempts to use Sicko as a platform to advocate or discredit a wider ideological point. smb 05:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
      • If the article's written in an NPOV way, then it might be just as much a "handy rebuttal page" to the film's critics as well as to those who defend it. In fact, an NPOV article would kinda tend to do both in part, and if you actually read the thing, you'll find it's got both the pro and the con in it. The article isn't about policy, it's about the movie, and there's a lot of information out there about Moore's methods and his arguments. Smb is determined to think that presenting criticism is necessarily going to result in an article that's anti-Moore. By presenting the defenses made against the criticisms and the positive reactions that are also part of the controversy, I think I've shown that the subject is not inherently biased. I think Moore's movie is important and WP:Notable enough, as shown by all the attention it received, that it deserves two articles so that it can be adequately covered on pages that are not too long. Noroton 06:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete or Merge Back as of now, article is in violation of WP:SYNTH, because it is taking individual issues and putting them all together under the broad topic. Corpx 01:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
    • The article is about the reaction to the documentary as a work of opinion journalism (all documentaries are journalism). Documentary movies are also works of art, and that's covered in the main article (although we could potentially move the reviewers' reactions into this controversies article and call it something like "Response to the film Sicko"). As opinion journalism it needs to present its case well and be accurate. (How else would you judge opinion journalism?) If this were such a synthesis, then there wouldn't be so many magazine and newspaper articles that cover the exact same areas that the article does. It fits together well and it's not original research. Noroton 06:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep This is the practical way of dealing with it, and the customary one. I don;'t see how it can possibly violate synth, any more than any other article content in any article would. DGG (talk) 04:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't think you can nominate a page for deletion in order to keep it. This is not a court, and the decision here does not prevent editors from coming to a consensus about merging an article. Go back to the talk page; AfD does not prevent editors from implementing a merge. Cool Hand Luke 05:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy close as this isn't even an AfD but some misguided attempt to...I don't know. Whatever it is, it belongs in that article's Talk page. --ElKevbo 09:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete POV fork. Catchpole 09:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Reinstate merge. POV fork, syth, gaming the system. KillerChihuahua?!? 11:03, 24 August 2007 (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.