Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The God Who Wasn't There

The God Who Wasn't There

• Keep. Keep it.
• Keep. Please keep this article. You can't censor articles just because you disagree with them. Plus, the movie is correct!
• Keep. Those who oppose this entry, and this film are merely afraid that their beliefs might be wrong - too afraid to face even the possibility that they may be wrong. -Darrell Lunsford
• Keep. God really isn't there.
• Keep. This is a powerful documentary which needs to have a reference in public domain.Vonrick
• Keep. I've bought and watched the movie and it's a good one. It should definitely be included on Wikipedia.
• Keep. It was a good movie. This is nothing more than a few religious people getting upset over nothing.
• Keep. Fight religious censorship. It's an impressive documentary movie with many insights and facts not commonly known. 1:28pm PT, 31 July 2005
• Keep. Censorship is not a good idea.
• Keep. It's an impressive documentary movie with many facts not commonly known.

Article about a straight-to-video documentary, written as if it were copied directly from a press release. NN, WP is not advertising, etc. Calton | Talk 06:00, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Author of film is also the author of the passage accused of copyright violation. He authorizes the use of this text. Those pushing for deletion have a political/religious agenda. 2:20rm central, 31 July 2005 Michael Kozlowicz
• Keep. Legitimate film. Deletion serves no purpose other than censorship. artofluke 14:13, 31 July 2005
• Keep. Perfectly legitimate and notable. Dysfunktion 19:13, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Real documentary obviously in reach of the public (has a IMDb page). Good enough for me. Notable. CanadianCaesar 06:43, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep although it needs EXTENSIVE cleanup. ~~~~ 08:05, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep IMDB-proven, actual film. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:17, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Ken 13:35, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Verifiable, notable. 23skidoo 14:08, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Calton is also trying to delete the Atheists of Silicon Valley Wikipedia entry, so PLEASE go there and vote to keep it! Thanks. 30 July 2005
• I was going to vote keep but NPOV the blurb - but unfortunately, much of it is a copyvio (keep if I'm wrong)--Doc (?) 19:00, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Important historical and educational documentary. The user who voted to delete this entry clearly has an agenda, since he has attacked other atheist entries. 30 July 2005
  • Unsigned vote by User:63.199.245.18 - 1st and only edit to Wikipedia. And what other entries (note plural) have I "attacked"? --Calton | Talk 17:10, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I've seen it - this film is groundbreaking and the article is accurate. 30 July 2005
  • Unsigned vote by User:206.45.186.15 - 1st and only edit to Wikipedia.
• Keep What? Why in the world should this be deleted? It's an amazing documentary that should be required viewing. Yes, I suspect there is a Right-Wing agenda and trying to keep a legitimate film from the public. 30 July 2005
  • Unsigned vote by User:66.136.149.229 - 1st and only edit edit to Wikipedia. I'm definitely seeing an agenda, all right. --Calton | Talk 17:10, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
    • Are you suggesting that Wikipedia readers shouldn't vote when someone attempts a clearly unwarranted deletion? BrianFlemming --216.175.79.153 18:19, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
    • I wrote that entry. Although not a "member" (I prefer not to join every website out there - seems to get me on spam lists), that doesn't mean I don't read and utilize the information presented. Susan W. 31 July 2005
• Keep The recent "copyright problem" notice attached to this entry is rather clearly frivolous. The text in question is not original to Microcinema but is instead a plot summary provided freely to anyone by the makers of the film. I know this because I wrote that summary and made the film. I would suggest Wikipedia users opposed to this movie should submit information about the controversy rather than trying to delete its entry. BrianFlemming 30 July 2005
  • Unsigned vote by User:66.136.149.229 - 1st edits to Wikipedia. And why did you originally sign yoursekf as User:Doc? --Calton | Talk 17:10, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
    • I was not trying to arouse any paranoia. At first I copied and pasted from a previous entry to enter my own vote. I corrected the error within seconds, I believe. BrianFlemming --216.175.79.153 18:19, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep To delete this entry is to acknowledge that faith should not be challenged. It is pertinent that individuals always consider the alternative--to think for themselves. Flemming asks the viewer not to necessarily debunk one's own religious (or non-religious) leanings, but to question and to think critically...an entertaining and thought provoking piece. --star_firechild 31 July 2005
  • Unsigned vote by User:24.100.131.42 - 1st and only edit to Wikipedia. I'm definitely starting to see a pattern here. --Calton | Talk 17:10, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Not only is it a real film by a real filmmaker, it's stirred civil debates at various festival screenings; it's a noteworthy cultural event. dwhudson.
  • Unsigned vote by User:24.100.131.42 - 1st and only edit to Wikipedia. Cutting and pasting is fun! --Calton | Talk 17:10, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep It's a real film by a real filmmaker. There are plenty of other films listed on the Wikipedia, so why not this one?
  • Unsigned vote by User:81.164.51.164 - 1st and only edit to Wikipedia. Cutting and pasting is fun! --Calton | Talk 17:10, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
    • Calton, you apparently missed the question here. It was, "There are plenty of other films listed on the Wikipedia, so why not this one?" BrianFlemming --216.175.79.153 18:19, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
      • I didn't miss it, but since it was an argument that would gotten a failing grade in a junior-high debating class, it didn't seem worth the bother. --Calton | Talk 00:31, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Okay, I'm not going to vote at this point, although I'd like to point out that the issue of copyright violation is one which we take very seriously. If the text is copied from somewhere else, then that's grounds to blank the article. We simply can't take someone's word for it that "oh, it's okay", because everything on Wikipedia is public domain; so rather than being copied from somewhere else, it has to be reworded. Maybe the copyvio allegation is valid, maybe it's false, I'm really not in the mood to do a comparison just now, so I'll leave that be. More importantly, though, for those of you who voted but are not registered users, I politely suggest that you read my my article explaining what you've done wrong. DS 16:09, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I understand that you are not "in the mood" to do any research, as you say, but perhaps you could check out this link to see this statement: "Note: the text in this press kit is placed into the public domain and may be used elsewhere." We're talking here about re-use of a plot summary that is made freely available. Additionally, there is other material in this entry original to the entry. How could deleting this entire entry possibly be the right thing to do here? BrianFlemming
    • Ah, so it does and so it is; objection withdrawn. In addition, I'm in a better mood now, and I've read through the article, and I've compared it to the press kit, etc, and I have to say, I don't see any problem with keeping it. I would also like to kindly suggest to the many anonymous voters who are accusing us of being rabidly anti-atheist to please, consider that anyone can put any article up for VfD at any time (although if you do it maliciously, and repeatedly, you will be blocked from editing). All it takes is one person to suggest that it be deleted, and then we debate it, like we're doing now. And the process typically works; you'll note that the majority of the signed votes are pro-keep? So calm down, okay?DS 21:22, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

--216.175.79.153 18:19, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. What 'dwhudson' said. Mike Linksvayer 16:21, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I'm starting to worry about the future of the Wikipedia project. It's becoming more about compounding ignorance rather than sharing information. Universist 19:13, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. One user can't start a Crusade against an entry just because he disagrees with the subject of that entry. If there's an issue with the wording, then reword it; I'd gladly assist in that. --Writer@Large 19:15, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I've seen it too. It's obvious when you watch it that certain groups of people would love to keep this work out of the public consciousness. I don't see what other reason than special interest censorship to take it off. Fando
• Keep. What's next book-burning? msallen
• Strong Keep I've seen it and it pisses me off that Wikipedia is nothing more than a bunch of Christian censors who blacklist everything that proves Christ is a FRAUD. --Marcperkel 19:26, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep The movie had special impact that should be documented in this article. Nobody asked for Christian movie articles like The Passion to be removed, so movies about other points of view shouldn't be removed either.--BrendanRyan 19:39, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
• KeepThere's no reason to delete this entry other than blatant censorship.
• Keep I wouldn't vote to exclude fundamentalist or other religious films or material, so why should anyone else be able to vote this film out? Why would such an entry be subect to a popular vote anyway? The project should include information that is potentially useful to some consumers, period.
• Keep There is no legitimate reason to delete this, other than to censor the views expressed in the film. The fact that the same user tried to delete other Atheist pages is a giveaway.
• Keep. This documentary is historically factual. Johara 20:08, 31 July 2005 (UTC).
• Keep Why is this even being considered for deletion? There is no legitimate purpose in censoring this entry - It is nothing more than an Orwellian attempt to whitewash Christian history in order to suit fundamentalist mentalities. The movie is brilliant. I hope Wikipedia is not considering deleting everything else in history that offends fundamentalists! -David Fitzgerald
• Keep What reason do they even have to delete this? -Ryan Baker
• Keep This movie is very noteworthy. It thoughtfully challenges the largest "organization" in the world. Wrong or right, it is worthy of an article. - Sam Adams (Yes, that is my real name.)
• Keep Valuable article. -Jeremy Bort
• Keep This is listed here exactly why? Maver1ck 22:14, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. There are substantial copyvios here but this can be taken to WP:CP and salvaged by a rewrite. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:28, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. From the description, this is less of an attack on Christianity than it is an attack on fundamentalism itself, which, as a rationalist and a Christian, I am all in favour of pointing out the problems in. Also, the cp problems can be fixed - the violation seems to be mostly in the second half. --khaosworks 23:13, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. JohnFitzpatrick
• Keep There are already plenty of articles about movies on wikipedia. I don't see any reason to make an exception for this one. -66.245.59.239
• Keep. Wikipedia people, please don't be cowered into going down the 'slippery slope' of censorship to please a few who had their religious feathers ruffled.
• Keep. Brian Flemming, the author of the movie, says he wants the entry to remain as is. The poeple who object are said to be Christians who object to the movie because it is blasphemy. Well, I saw the movie, it is a good movie, as an atheist I think it does a good job of representing my worldview.
• Keep. Evil Monkey∴Hello 02:53, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep/Comment. Please read the rules of how VFD actually works before voting. The lack of understanding here is frustrating. - Vague | Rant 02:56, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Holy Smokes what the HELL is going on here? Can we move all the anon and sock puppet votes to discussion or something?--Tznkai 02:58, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • What's with all these allegations of "sock puppets"? I know there are a lot of first-timers here, but that's different than a sock puppet, as I understand it. What's happening is that word has spread in the atheist community about this attempted deletion and the attempted deletion of the Atheists of Silicon Valley entry. But these votes are, to my knowledge, all real (my email inbox is full of a similar number of responses). These comments are opinionated as heck, yes, but they're real. Discounting them as "sock puppets" is just inaccurate, unless you have evidence that you are not sharing. --BrianFlemming 03:12, 1 August 2005 (UTC)