Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reaction to Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

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 delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:41, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reaction to Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The page appears to be little more than a listing of every review of the film with a focus on the negative POV. Film reviews are of course notable information but do not warrant their own article, especially given that the subject is adequately covered in the film’s primary page. Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. PeRshGo (talk) 17:01, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Simply a POV Fork, subject already covered enough on the main page of the film. A8x (talk) 17:09, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - This is pretty clearly the byproduct of a POV war, with an overblown POV-laden article met with this overblown, POV-laden critique article. Get the info together, reduce size of overall combined article by 85%, and it's golden. Upon further review, tone of the original article isn't bad. The massive critique page seems over-the-top. It's not technically a POV fork, as alleged above, but rather an example of using another page to "pile on." Carrite (talk) 17:15, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a split fully compliant with WP:SUMMARY, going into more detail of aspects summarised in the main article. Carefully sourced and balanced in accordance with NPOV. Notable information with historic relevance to the reception of the film, part of the continuing controversy over promotion of ID. . .. dave souza, talk 17:45, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete May be compliant with WP:SUMMARY, but certainly doesn't need this level of detail. What's left in the main article looks about right. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:06, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this seems to have too much detail, as does the main article. the article structure "Reaction to..." is not very common at WP. heres what we have:

Reaction to officiating in Super Bowl XL Reaction to the 1963 South Vietnamese coup Reaction to the 2005-2006 Fijian political crisis Reaction to the Assassination of JFK (multiple redirects deleted) Reaction to the Fijian political crisis 2005-2006 Reaction to the Kosovo independence Reaction to the Passing of Ronald Reagan by World Leaders Reaction to the death of Michael Jackson Reaction to the death of Robert Byrd

we also have:

Reactions to 9.11 (many redirect removed here) Reactions to McCarthyism Reactions to excavations at the Temple Mount Reactions to the 2004 Madrid train bombings Reactions to the 2008 Mumbai attacks Reactions to the 2008 Sichuan earthquake Reactions to the 2010 Kyrgyzstan riots Reactions to the 2010 Moscow Metro bombings Reactions to the 2010 ROKS Cheonan sinking Reactions to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill Reactions to the Gaza flotilla raid Reactions to the International Court of Justice advisory opinion on Kosovo's declaration of independence Reactions to the Northwest Airlines Flight 253 attack Reactions to the November 2008 Mumbai attacks

In no way is this film or reactions to it on a par with any of these articles. i know this is not a firm argument for deletion, giving examples of other article, but i think it helps get some perspective. I think the use of "reaction to" as an article header should rare, as with "criticism of" which is constantly being debated.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 22:32, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as an overly detailed catalogue of movie reviews. -- Whpq (talk) 16:50, 26 July 2010 (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.