Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fallujah, The Hidden Massacre

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 keep and cleanup. - Mailer Diablo 03:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fallujah, The Hidden Massacre

Fallujah, The Hidden Massacre (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This article is unsourced, horribly POV, and a target for IP vandals. Nardman1 03:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. This is a literary commentary/response to the content/issues in the movie, not an encyclopediac article about the movie. DMacks 04:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep because this article has notability, hence the IP vandalism. It needs to be edited for NPOV, but to delete it could be a POV act in itself. I have asked for this page to be protected.--Shakujo 04:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and rewrite The article itself is pretty bad, but the subject is notable, and it can be rewritten. Chairman S. Talk Contribs 04:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep and rewrite The article isn't good, but the movie seems notable--except that I had trouble finding any independent reliable sources on the film--I was getting mostly blogs, indymedia, forum postings, etc. If reliable sources can't be found then the article probably should be deleted. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I didn't write this article, but give me some time to find better sources: the Movie itself was big news in Europe because of political intervention by the then PM of Italy to censor it and punish the directors.--Shakujo 05:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep The movie is rather notable. Even if the article needs rewriting, it is not so bad as to merit burning with fire. --Gwern (contribs) 05:56 14 February 2007 (GMT) 05:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep - Agree with Gwern. --Pokipsy76 11:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, if the article is POV, change it to NPOV. And we never ever delete article because they are a target for IP vandals. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 11:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep A notable subject, however this needs to be rewritten to focus on the cultural impact of the documentary, not an essay based on the topics covered by the documentary. -- IslaySolomon | talk 12:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep but clean up the article. Alf photoman 14:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep. - Article needs more sources and be cleaned-up. --Bryson 14:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep and cleanup. The reasons offered by the nom are reasons for cleanup/improvement, not deletion (the article itself is not inherently POV as it is about an actual documentary. The page has a number of reliable news and non-news references and the subject matter is thus notable. -- Black Falcon 20:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and overhaul the article needs to be rewritten to conform with WP:NPOV and so it discusses the documentary itself instead of simply the content of the documentary, but there is no indication that the documentary is not notable.-- danntm T C 02:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep the film is notable, it would be nice if there was a section on the impact of the film and responses to it, at the moment the only thing of this nature in the article are attacks on the accuracy of the film.

There are links to the film itself which could be considered as a reliable source as to what the film is about and what statements it makes. Some Sort Of Anarchist Nutter 13:04, 16 February 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.