Talk:The REAL Rudy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Article for speedy deletion:The REAL Rudy

User:Bfigura immediately moved to delete this article, immediately after its posting.

His move is blatant POV. He wrote nothing to justify it. You simply sent a form message to me, the author, with no explanation on my talk page. Dogru144 23:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV deletion of articles by User:Bfigura

User:Bfigura has moved to delete The REAL Rudy on Robert Greenwald's viral video immediately upon its posting. The move to delete the article was made with no justification on my talk page or on the talk page of the article.

The {therealrudy.com} web site is politically significant. There are hundreds of google accessible hits as the result of the google search for it. The move to delete the article is probably politically motivated, as it is inconsistent with the survival of other viral videos. Note that there is existing commercially motivated material, such as the Ron Paul Dollar, promoted on the wikipedia page for Liberty Dollar. Yet, this has not been deleted. Dogru144 23:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Examples of other viral videos that have not been deleted

The above is an example of a viral video that has not been deleted. Dogru144 23:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] PROFOUND NOTABILITY'

The {therealrudy.com} web site is politically significant. There are hundreds of google accessible hits as the result of the google search for it.

  • The videos are noted on news sites as diverse as those produced by commondreams on the left, and Fox and Cyber News Service on the right. Dogru144 23:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Curious contrasts

I noted that that there are over 20 viral video articles listed on the viral videos article, including a porn-sharing site. Yet, curiously, only flagged The REAL Rudy was flagged for speedy deletion. Dogru144 03:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This is not notable

This is not notable and should be deleted. 7390r0g 05:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

That was my initial thought too. However, after doing some digging, it has gotten a fair amount of non-trivial coverage in some reliable sources. (The Nation, The Huffington Post, etc.) Granted, the sources tend to be of a certain political leaning, but I think they still affirm some sort of notability. --Bfigura (talk) 06:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The Huffington Post is a blog.. right? When did it become a "reliable source"? 7390r0g (talk) 06:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, it may be useful in some cases, depending on the notability of the blog author, but in general I would not count huffington as reliable, anyone can get an account from what I can see. Hulahulahulahula (talk) 22:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Whether a piece at the Huffington Post constitutes a reliable source would depend on who the author is and what's asserted. Notability is a different issue, though. If there's discussion of something in the right-wing or left-wing blogosphere, that fact tends to show notability, and the blogs are reliable sources for the fact that the subject is being discussed. (This has some aspect of original research but we can't avoid original research when we, as Wikipedians, make our own decisions about whether a subject meets our notability guidelines.) JamesMLane t c 03:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] It is more notable that other sites in viral video list

Let's face it. Giuliani partisans are uncomfortable with the facts. And they want to erase them. Dogru144 19:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question of See also cross-references

User:TimeWasteR is apparently selective about what he thinks is appropriate to have in cross-references. e.g., September 11, 2001, the date that is sickeningly the favorite day of all time for Giuliani and his flock is not POV to list in See Also --even though this is what runs through his article ad nauseum.

So, anything that is embarrassing to Giuliani or his flock is controversial as a cross-reference itself. This selectivity of what may / may not be included in See Also is apparently POV.

(Namely, I am referring to the references, viral video and Robert Greenwald.) Dogru144 19:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Whoops, I mean User:Wasted Time R, which alas, applies to many of us here in the wikisphere. Dogru144 19:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Dogru144, this isn't that hard. WP:ALSO says: "The 'See also' section provides an additional list of internal links to other articles in Wikipedia that are related to this one as a navigational aid. A 'See also' section should ideally not repeat links already present in the article, links that are only vaguely related to the topic, or link to pages that do not exist." Of the five 'See also' entries in this particular case, two of them (viral video and Robert Greenwald) are already linked in the article, in fact very prominently in the very first sentence. Thus, they don't belong in a 'See also'. The other three entries (Health effects of the September 11, 2001 attacks, September 11, 2001 radio communications, and Rudy Giuliani: Urban Legend) are not linked to from the article, but are presumably related to the themes of the video. Thus, they do belong. It's that simple. It has nothing to do with any kind of POV. If the first sentence of an article was, "'The REAL Root' is a series of four videos about growing radishes in Brooklyn," and the 'See also' section had links to radishes and Brooklyn, those links would need to be edited out as well. Wasted Time R 23:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
So So So POV. Just drop it. Dogru144 (talk) 18:01, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Your response is devoid of argument relating to WP guidelines. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Plenty of press coverage

There has been much press coverage of the project. So curious that Brave New Films article has been deleted. Dogru144 (talk) 18:01, 25 November 2007 (UTC)