Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United 93 Acclaim

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 Merge, which was completed before this debate was closed. Shell ^babelfish 08:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] United 93 Acclaim

WP:N. Text deleted from United 93 (film) discussed at Talk:United 93 (film)#It.27s_time_to_add_a_Critical_Acclaim_Section_for_the_article Clappingsimon talk 02:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't understand why it is nominated for deletion? Could you be more specific? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.50.0.112 (talk • contribs)

• Merge content back into United 93 (film). It should be possible to fit most of this content back into the main article. --Metropolitan90 04:34, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Frankly I think the section already in United 93 (film) is sufficient, although I wouldn't strongly object to a merge if others want that. BryanG^(talk) 05:27, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete already covered in main article. 24.18.214.147 05:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to main article. -- Gogo Dodo 05:56, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge — Lets keep it in the same article people mboverload@ 09:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to main article. the wub "?!" 14:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to main article. The main article should include all the details mentioned in this one, it is to brief over there. I remember that the main article had this good explaination, but it was edited to a very small paragraph. The acclaim of United 93 is an event that currently is a highlight of the 2006 movie season, it need to be discussed in details. But if we merge this one, the article "Brokeback Mountain Awards" should be merge to the main article too. Let's be fair then... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.214.147 (talk • contribs)
• Merge as per above, and merge the Brokeback Mountain example too. If we don't have such split-off articles for all films, there is no reason to exhibit POV and pick-and-choose. 23skidoo 18:44, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Brokeback Mountain Awards is an extensive list of actual awards that film won. It is completely different from a list of critic's comments about a film. Brokeback Mountain Awards should not be merged. Clappingsimon talk 03:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment In contrast to the hype on United 93 Acclaim, United 93 is rated as 14th best 'Top Movie' of 2006 by RottenTomatoes. Who ever merges the information back should be careful to maintain WP:NPOV Clappingsimon talk 03:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment To Clappingsimon. Hype, where is the hype?, Clearly you nominated this article for deletion because you are biased. But now that you did this, we have to deal the situation. I can't see any hype on the article, it presents actual information based on the internet and no speculations, they are facts. Add the Rotten Tomatoes info to the article and nothing will change and it would be fine. List of "extensive" awards? There's the bias with BBM. Well, then, the U93 article says that the info will feature the awards and nominations that the film probably will receive. For your information the BBM artcle is titled "Brokeback Mountain Critical Reception" and has some quotes from critics after the Crash victory, if you are biased towards BBM then please don't manifest yourself thru Wikipedia, it is a shame!. Merge both articles to the main articles, its the only way to be fair. If not one, not all —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.145.153.82 (talk • contribs)
    • Comment If it be my bias to see Wikipedia full of accurate articles, so be it. Please state your sources for this bit of non-hype "So far, no film in 2006 had surpassed the critical acclaim of United 93." BTW Critical reception of Brokeback Mountain shows the movie has received 30 major film awards and 20 more nominations. Happy merging. Cheers Clappingsimon talk 05:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment "Please state your sources for this bit of non-hype So far, no film in 2006 had surpassed the critical acclaim of United 93." A little statistics 101. Average is the sum of all terms divided by the number of terms. United 93... 90% at RT, 90% at Metacritic, 95% at BFCA = (90+90+95)/300 = 91.7%. If we do that with the other 13 movies over U93 in Rotten Tomatoes. Kexexelu Mountain Patrol: RT 98%, Metacritic 77%, No BFCA, Average:87.5%.// The War Tapes: RT 97%, Metacritic 76%, No BFCA, Average: 86.5%. // Iron Island: RT 96%, Metacritic 74%, No BFCA, Average: 85% // Wordplay: RT 95%, Metacritic 73%, No BFCA, Average: 84% // Little Miss Sunshine: RT 93%, Metacritic 78%, BFCA 94%, Average: 88.3% // Dave Chappelle's Block Party: RT 93%, Metacritic 84%, BFCA 76%, Average: 84.3% // Fateless: RT 93%, Metacritic 87%, No BFCA, Average: 90% // An Inconvenient Truth: RT 92%, Metacritic 74%, No BFCA, Average: 83% // Darwins Nightmare: RT 92%, Metacritic 84%, No BFCA, Average: 88% // Neil Young - Heart of Gold: RT 91%, Metacritic 85%, No BFCA, Average: 88% // The Death of Mr. Lazarescu: RT 91%, Metacritic 84%, No BFCA, Average 87.5% // Devil's Miner: RT 91%, Metacritic 81%, No BFCA, Average: 86% // and finally Shakespeare Behind Bars: RT 91%, Metacritic 74%, Average 82.5%. Well, to end the small discussion of the last two users, well I used Math, because math is accurate, and indeed United 93 is the film with the highest score of the year and Its true that no film had surpassed its critical acclaim, so can you argue mathematical results??. Well Mr. Clappingsimon how can all this information be added as a source? Because your statement after all is refuted by the statistics that I wrote on this comment. Plus, other films like The Godfather, Schindlers List that had won more awards than Brokeback Mountain don't have a separate article... Well, why according to you we had to make an exeption with Brokeback Mountain Awards? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.50.1.121 (talk • contribs)
      • Your maths is completely wrong. If you're interested in an explanation of where you are going wrong, please ask at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Mathematics. Cheers Clappingsimon talk 23:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
      • You really need an intensive class of basic statistics... Actually saying that a simple average of three numbers is wrong, take your calculator and verify "Your maths is completely wrong" Give me a break! Geez! Some people!
        • Your maths is completely wrong because you are not taking into account the numbers of cases in each %. It's an easy mistake to make. Just ask at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Mathematics. Cheers Clappingsimon talk 00:39, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Eliminate the BFCA scores, and take the arithmetic mean to each movie (two cases) and still United 93 gets the higher score. And if we take in consideration the number of reviews per movie per website, United 93 has a lot more reviews than all the other films. In proportion it still the highest. There is no way you can refute the argument, Try to find a way to do so and I will accept it. I will not waste my time arguing about insignificant things. Merge it or delete, I simply dont care, to avoid saying another expression!
        • • • You just need to multiply each % by the number of reviews of U93 on that website, then divide by the total reviews of U93 on all websites. It's really that simple. Cheers Clappingsimon talk 01:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
            • Sorry if I'm being a little rude, Im apologizing because you seem to be polite. Sorry Again. I'm doing it just like you are saying so, if I multiply each % by the number of reviews of U93 in Rotten Tomatoes, then divide by the total reviews of U93 on all websites and I do the same with Metacritic, i'll get two results, How I can incorporate them? " (RT% x #reviews) + (M% x #reviews) divided by the total of reviews?
              • It's the sum: (% * n1) + (% * n2) + (% * n3) / (n1 + n2 + n3) Clappingsimon talk 02:04, 20 August 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.