Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Moore controversies

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 keep in the sense of "not delete"; no consensus to merge. Discussion about a merger can continue on the article talk page. Sandstein 18:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Moore controversies

Per WP:WTA#Article structures that can imply a point of view, articles should not be structured in a way that implies a point of view. "Controversy" is often used on Wikipedia simply because you can't say "scandal", even where the usage of the word is incorrect. As such, they tend to be POV forks. I believe this article is a POV fork: it makes no attempt to neutralise the sides of the controversies-except in the Fahrenheit 9/11 section-instead just being a term for admonishment. Per POVFORK, this article should be deleted or, at the very least, merged into the Moore article. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the main Michael Moore article as User:Sceptre suggested. Back in November 2007, a similar decision was made at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al Gore controversies, as "[X] controversy" articles tend to become WP:BLP-violating dumping grounds for unsourced gossip. A point by editor User:Lawrence Cohen at the "Al Gore controversies" AFD: "Featured articles such as Ronald Reagan, Gerald Ford, Wesley Clark, Barack Obama, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Calvin Coolidge, and Theodore Roosevelt do not have associated articles like this." And neither should any other biographical article or any other article about anything for the matter.--Andrewlp1991 (talk) 00:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I just peeked through the main Moore article - and that article contains nothing about his controversies, which were all "forked" to this article! --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 00:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~. The article does a reasonable job of summarising criticism of Michael Moore which is relevant, and probably too large for the main article. I like Moore and didn't feel that there were serious POV issues here. Possibly rename to criticism instead of controversy (probably a more accurate description). This isn't a fork, since there's no alternate version of it anywhere else -- it's just been cut from the main Michael Moore page due to its length. Pburka (talk) 00:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Additionally, there's plenty of precedent for criticism articles. See Category:Criticisms. Pburka (talk) 00:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Furthermore, this article isn't actually criticism of Michael Moore, so much as criticism of his films. It's not a biographical article; it's Criticism of Michael Moore's films. However, now that I've typed this, I wonder if there's actually much value in collecting these criticisms in one place? Don't these belong in the articles about each film. Therefore I'm changing my vote to Merge with the individual film articles, moving any generic criticism (is there any?) to the main Michael Moore article. Pburka (talk) 00:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep There is precedent for criticism articles. I would support a rename to Criticism of Michael Moore's films or somesuch; either way, it just seems like too much info to merge anywhere. (I thought "Michael Moore controversies" was a tautology anyway.) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since it's encylopedic, sourced, too long for the main article, and there's a long precedent of articles covering criticism and controversies. I don't think renaming to criticism of is necessary since there are examples of articles using controversies as well in the crit category, and the Cuban bit in the beginning seems to make the whole piece better categorized as controversies. That said, if people feel strongly about the rename, I don't strongly object. Either way, keep. Vickser (talk) 02:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The notion of a "POV fork" is both bad grammar and bad thinking. This article is fine the way it is. Croctotheface (talk) 02:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to last three editors: Have you actually read the main Moore article? If so, you'd notice the almost overwhelming "positivity" of that article. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 03:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So put the most salient criticisms into the main article. There just isn't a better way to organize criticism than "criticism sections" or "controversies articles"; the notion that ALL of it can be "weaved in" among other information is a fantasy. Some of it could be handled this way, but that doesn't mean that the whole article could be merged; it can't. It doesn't mean the whole article should be deleted; it shouldn't be. Croctotheface (talk) 05:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge individual film criticism with their respective articles, and merge Michael Moore's opinion of Cuban-Americans into Writings and political views on main page. ~ smb 08:17, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, pov fork. --Soman (talk) 09:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, if you have to have a controversies article then you have to have a praise article. Evenly distribute positive or negative criticism in his article. Alientraveller (talk) 09:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move, source, and rebuild This article is about the work produced by Michael Moore, and the controversies surrounding his body of work. This article should be renamed as such, perhaps: "Controversies inspired by works of Michael Moore" to eliminate BLP pitfalls. However, I still have issues with the underlying content of this article. There article does not discuss controversies so much as allegations against the productions and details of individuals being offended or publicly challenging those works. While Moore's works play into, highlight, or take sides in preexisting controversies, I don't see them as creating controversies where none existed before. I find this article presentation, structure, and title to be POV, but not, perhaps unsalvageably so. More importantly, this article could serve as a useful place to discuss the works of Moore without running into BLP issues. HatlessAtless (talk) 13:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge—If the individual articles on the films want any of the content, then put it in them. The stuff about each movie belongs in the movie's article. Since the kB volume added to each article is negligible, this isn't a legitimate size related fork. After any legit content is merged, redirect to Michael Moore. Livitup (talk) 16:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.