Jump to content

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

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 24.27.59.196 (talk) at 20:03, 31 July 2005 (→[[The God Who Wasn't There]]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

The God Who Wasn't There

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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Keep although it needs EXTENSIVE cleanup. ~~~~ 08:05, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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?
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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 --216.175.79.153 18:19, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. What 'dwhudson' said. Mike Linksvayer 16:21, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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 buch of Christian censors who blacklist everything that proves Christ is a FRAUD. --Marcperkel 19:26, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_God_Who_Wasn%27t_There&oldid=19999999"