Talk:Fahrenhype 9/11

Deletion discussion

from VfD:

• Keep - Page already deleted, only 37,000 hits on google. -- User:203.112.19.195

Comment. You nominate it, vote keep, but want it deleted? -- Solitude 10:10, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)

Comment. 203.112.19.195 only has seven hits on Google, and that's only if you add the omitted stuff. Does that mean we should delete you? Joshua Ingram (talk) 21:53, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. -- Solitude 10:10, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)
• Strangest VFD behaviour I've ever seen, but then again maybe it's different people sharing that IP address. I vote keep, it certainly seems notable. —Stormie 10:20, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete Good idea listing your ad on VfD, if the page had just been created hardly anyone would have seen it. I for one can't wait to not see it. Jongarrettuk 11:32, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• That really is clever on 203's part! but in the interest of NPOV, Keep: given the uncertainty as to the factual nature of -heit, it's useful to have a synopsis of the rebuttal, which in addition is notable in view of some of its participants. Once -HYPE clears VfD, a link to it should be included on the Fahrenheit 9/11 page. — Bill 13:27, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Certainly if 'keep' wins the day, it might as well be linked somewhere other than the votes for deletion page. Good luck with the edit war you'll create on the Fahrenheit 9/11 page though :)) Jongarrettuk 15:46, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Advertisement. jni 13:41, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. This is a legitimate movie. You can even rent it on Netflix. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 14:17, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the further ad DropDeadGorgias. I'll look forward to not renting it too. Jongarrettuk 15:46, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Heh, I just read my original vote and realized it came off a little spamarific. Still, being listed on netflix is significantly more notable than being listed on, say, IMDB or Google. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 19:09, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)
      • Exactly, I have friends who are on IMDB, along with their grad school film projects. Getting in netflix is much harder (though as I've mentioned below netflix most likely bought a very limited number of copies). anthony (see warning) 17:03, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Delete advertising. Fire Star 19:13, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. It's no more of an ad than any other movie page. Rhobite 19:47, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, that's true. I should have said "delete previously deleted advertising." The current article seems harmless enough, but may not be notable. I may change my vote, I'll have to think about it. Merging with the existing Michael Moore article would work for me, too. Fire Star 23:22, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I do think that it should be combined with the larger Fahrenheit 9/11 article as this movie's notability rides firmly on that movie's notability. I change my vote to merge. Fire Star 05:07, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Should we merge The Wind Done Gone with Gone With the Wind, as well? anthony (see warning) 17:05, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Keep - RustyCale 20:02, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Weak Delete - I previously nominated this for deletion, and I think it was carried. However, when I nominated it, there was no sign of release, little information, I wasn't even sure if it was real or a hoax. Now I see it's an actual product, however, that still doesn't make it notable. There are thousands of 'home' published, straight to DVD films, and I don't think this is a notable one. Wikipedia is not IMDb, although many films are encyclopedic. Darksun 20:12, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • This was on the front page of my netflix account. Surely it qualifies as notable. anthony (see warning) 21:19, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Suggestion -- add to Farenheit 9/11 article as "criticism/oppposing views"
  • Nice suggestion there. Adds something to the Fahrenheit 9/11 article and avoids an orphan link. Change vote to Merge with Fahrenheit 9/11. (If it becomes a big hit, it can get its own page back then.) Jongarrettuk 21:48, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • I disagree, although it should be mentioned in the controversy chapter of Fahrenheit 9/11 along with Michael Moore Hates America and other documentaries critcizing Moore's movie. Frankly, I'm surprised this thread hasn't been closed years ago. ----DanTD (talk) 12:55, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
• Previously deleted. Prior discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/FahrenHype 9/11. It's a real movie now so the prior justification to delete no longer applies. I have a great deal of trouble with the argument that this can be notable one day after its release, though. For it to be notable this quickly, I would expect to have heard about it through some other channel, especially this close to the election. Still vote delete. Rossami 21:49, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Non notable in itself. A single link or at most a half-sentence in Fahrenheit 9/11 would do. Ropers 23:17, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Agree with Ropers. Delete. Any movie that thinks Zell Miller and Ann Coulter are objective, reliable sources is obviously full of crap. Bearcat 07:13, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Not notable. Delete. Gzornenplatz 07:22, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)
• Strong keep - it features notable people such as Zell Miller, Ann Coulter, Ed Koch and David Frum all of whom are significant people. Google has indexed 2,820 entries [1] People should cast their votes on the merits not because of their political beliefs.

- You googled incorrectly it actually has around 38,000 hits: [2]

• • D'oh - still with 38,000 hits it passes the Google test with flying colours. Capitalistroadster 06:09, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Keep – Seems notable enough to have an entry. – Smyth 12:18, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Keep -- I see not reason to delte. — Frecklefoot | Talk 16:52, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect - non-notable on its own merits, basically acts as a rebuttal to/attack upon Moore's film, and has no other context. -Sean Curtin 02:20, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep!, a legitimate film and therefore it deserves an article on wikipedia. Deleting it would be completely POV. Moore's film had an article months before its release. -- Crevaner 08:15, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• KEEP - There is not a genuine justification to delete the article. Its deletion would be a clear case of liberal bias. Shame on the people who have voted to delete it! -- Old Right 08:24, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. I've got it on my netflix queue, and it's listed as "long wait". I suppose this is at least in part because netflix is understocked, but it does at least say that there are a number of people waiting to see this movie. Yes, it acts mainly (or maybe solely, I haven't seen it yet) as a rebuttal to Moore's film. So what? anthony (see warning) 17:00, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Comment: Here is the original discussion. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 01:13, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)
  • Good example of a clearly improper VfD deletion. Glad to see this one (like Sidney Morgenbesser), is back. anthony (see warning) 02:20, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. While I doubt I'll watch this film (or any with Ann Coulter in it) it in fact exists and is available. However, we should make sure not to boost it beyond what is justified by its influence/impact. That is, adding it to the F911 page is probably not going to fly, nor should it. Fuzheado | Talk 01:07, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Article does not establish notability. Gamaliel 18:57, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. There are lots of movies I don't like or agree with, but I'm not all over their pages demanding that they not express their Constitutionally protected rights. Joshua Ingram (talk) 21:48, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

end moved discussion

Points

It would be good to have some of the movie's points summarized here in addition to a list of who appears in it. --Mr. Billion 06:56, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Its also interesting to note that this film has never been released in th UK on either DVD or the cinema, nor ever shown on tv. Even R1 DVDs appear to be rare. Seems SOMEONE doesn't want any views opposing Moore's to be heard...wonder why not??

I don't think there is any sinister reason for the fact that the film has not been released in the UK or cinema, I do believe that a part of this article has been removed, it detailed that the film was very unsuccesful in the states & went quickly to the bargin bins & finally it was just being given away at republican confrences. Now if this was untrue then it's removel was correct if not then it should be added back to the article. Yours Grimm MD

I have added a website where the movie can be seen (FahrenHYPE 9/11 movie). Enjoy! Asteriks 11:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Not saying much. Fahrenheit 9/11 has never been shown on TV in America either. Leobold1 (talk) 08:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Asteriks you should ask someone to enjoy this movie, because it is a bad movie, moving away from points raised in Fahrenheit 9/11 to point a finger at Bill Clinton & claiming Micheal Moore is crazy, by someone who i don't believe is a phyciatrist.

Yours Grimm MD —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.37.254 (talk) 23:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Why?

Why was everything except the basic premise removed? If Wikipedia isn't IMDB, why are there such a large amount of articles on movies? Can you tell me what cultural impact a movie such as Meet the Spartans has? That article is more detailed than the pages on it on IMDB. And perhaps I missed the discussion about it, but where was it discussed to remove everything but the absolute basics? Leobold1 (talk) 20:46, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

And the IP Address that did the change has no name attached to it. You'd think a change this large would at least want a name attached to it. [...] How about we change it back and then discuss it. Leobold1 (talk) 20:54, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

This article is a stub (i.e. not enough background information is provided to justify a complete appearance list at this time). Please discuss the edit not the editor. smb (talk) 01:30, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I have been adding information to get it out of stub status, and that was wiped out by someone that I can't ask why it was done. That was my reason for commenting on the person who did the edit. Leobold1 (talk) 02:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Expand

The article is worthless without some discussion about the contents of the film and examples of points in Moore's film that are rebutted. 70.72.211.35 (talk) 15:04, 22 April 2013 (UTC)