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 JamesBurns (talk | contribs) at 06:10, 4 August 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)

  • Ah - it wasn't straight to video (even if the theatrical release was only two weeks before the DVD), it interviews some notable people, and the part about how the DVD includes paid screening rights is definitely unusual. Plus, I've trimmed down a lot of the promotional puffery and PR. (note to the admin - careful not to count my vote twice!) DS 13:00, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To the anonymous/unregistered/registered-just-to-vote-on-this-debate voters, I'd like to ask you to calm down, please. If you'll notice, this is part of the normal process by which Wikipedia editors determine whether articles should be deleted. Ranting about how Wikipedia is being Orwellian Rightwing Fascist Bookburning Censors is not helpful. DS 13:13, 1 August 2005 (UTC) (Modified from the original to remove unpleasant implication by DS --Calton | Talk 08:41, August 2, 2005 (UTC))[reply]

  • Keep. Documentary serving humanity. Important to show this POV in our fundamentalist world (Christianity as well as Islam). Author not striving to make a huge profit (free screenings). Avocade 15:16, August 3, 2005 (UTC) (User's third edit. (Contribs)
  • Keep. I have used Wkipedia quite a bit, and this bit of controversy inspired me to join. I wondered how this kind of peer review works, now I know. Disclaimer, having attempted to get an interview with these movie makers, I'm kinda amazed at how organized they are here. --Moviememe 16:05, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Owner of copyright has placed the plot description in the public domain. It's a legit article. JakeGuy88 8:34, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
now that the copyvio issue has been cleared up, I'm happy to vote keep - even if its mainly to refute the someone's paranoid persecution complex --Doc (?) 11:28, 1 August 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]
  • 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)[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]
  • Keep This is listed here exactly why? Maver1ck 22:14, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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. Evil Monkey∴Hello 02:53, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I had never heard of this film until seeing it listed for VFD. So I read it and found it informative, and can't see how deleting it would add to Wiki's fount of knowledge, which is what we are here for. Yes, it needs salt (wikifying, cleanup, tweaking etc) but that would be better than deletion IMMHO. Moriori 03:33, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable film, although it needs cleanup. (I'm tempted to vote delete because of the sock/meatpuppets, however... dang.) --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 08:26, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • Just a note: sockpuppets or first-timers, while certainly different phenomena, have the same result on VFD, and that is uncounted votes. Certainly, "word has spread", and it seems to have been done with purpose, that being to keep this article (though seemingly on the grounds that deletion would be censorship, which is not something carried out on Wikipedia). So, accurate or otherwise, it won't really make a difference. - Vague | Rant 03:23, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
        • Wikipedia votes for deletion: "Anonymous and new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but their votes may be discounted, especially if they seem to be made in bad faith." (Emphasis mine.) I do not believe these votes are in bad faith. Nobody's trying to hide anything here. And nobody has asked that first-timer votes be given equal weight with veteran Wikipedians' votes.
          • That seems to settle it, then. Despite some attempts to poison the well against anon and first-time votes, they're welcomed by the rules, even if they don't carry as much weight as regular users. Much more in keeping with Wikipedia's "for everyone, by everyone" reputation.--69.212.54.145 13:50, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • Or, like I just did, voters may be voting without logging in first. [That last comment was mine. D'oh!] --Writer@Large 13:55, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • Uh. I have no problems with discussion for everyone and by everyone. I got tagged as a potential sockpuppet myself the first time I voted. that having been said, this particualr situation is ridiculous. Let me point something out about my statement "Can we move all the anon and sock puppet votes" Anons. Move them. Not remove them, but move them. My precise problem with the vast majority of these votes are: They make it hard to "count votes", and more importantly, they either say very little otehr than 'keep' or they start yacking about bookburning, censorship, and other such things. This is a breach of WP:AGF and can be seen as an act of bad faith editing. Personal attacks, and things that look like them, are not part of the wikipedia way.--Tznkai 16:04, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. LisaFr
  • Keep As a Christian, I vote to keep it. Ryan 06:01, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Let's not forget who burned down the ancient library of Alexandria! The concern this member shows for this entry being deleted seems irrational and insincere. (Yes I'm a newbie, but not a "sock puppet". I've used Winipedia for information for quite some time and enjoy it's honest and eclectic attributes)-Jymi
  • KEEP. I watched the movie, and have shown it to friends, they all agree it is one of the best (most accurate) documentaries made about the xtian faith, and it would be a shame to try and censor it out of public knowledge. Keep it. -Bighead
  • Keep. Keep it.
  • Keep. This is a powerful documentary which needs to have a reference in public domain.Vonrick
  • Keep. It was a good movie. This is nothing more than a few religious people getting upset over nothing.
  • Keep. Censorship is not a good idea.
  • Keep. Legitimate film. Deletion serves no purpose other than censorship. artofluke 14:13, 31 July 2005
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
      • 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)[reply]

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

  • Keep. Brian Flemming, the author of the movie, says he wants the entry to remain as is. The people 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. epepke
    • FYI, there seems to have been a coincidental crossover here with some users familiar with the Universist controversy. It's a separate issue, but the fact that every attempt to start an entry about the Universist Movement here has met with resistance from Wikipedia editors has fueled a perception that some Wikipedians organize to keep freethought from being acknowledged here. I'm not saying it's true, just noting the perception. I have to admit, I'm very perplexed about the multiple kills of the Universist entry. The Universists have had entire articles written about them in publications such as the New York Times, and as a member of the atheist community (but not of the Universists), I know that they are a major force. The assertion that the Universists are insignificant is clearly false, and it resembles the argument of Calton here that The God Who Wasn't There is an insignificant "straight to video" film. And it resembles Calton's false claim that Atheists of Silicon Valley is an insignificant group of only "local interest." There is a pattern here. All three of these claims of insignificance are false, and all three are attempts to spike Wikipedia acknowledgement of non-theist projects. Yes, there's a lot of smoke here (some of it unproductive, unwarranted and clearly casting the net of blame far too wide), but there's some fire. --BrianFlemming 18:40, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. So far on the delete-side I have seen no real argument to remove this article, only emotion-based pleas. As a Christian I have nothing to fear from truth or reasoned discourse.
  • Keep. FeloniousMonk 01:41, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. To Blu_Aardvark and those decrying the number of sock puppets here. That an article is supported by sock puppets is irrelevant to an article's actual value to the community. In other words, sock puppet support is not a valid justification for deleting an article. FeloniousMonk 01:51, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nobody is voting to delete any article for the sole reason that sockpuppets have voted on it. In relation to THIS article, there are only two votes to delete - one by the nominator, and one by an anonymous troll. I, personally, have voted to keep this article.--Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 07:05, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This movie has attracted significant media attention and includes interviews from figures who also have their own articles on Wikipedia. It is notable. Ebonmuse 02:21, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Since there seems to be no copyvio, I see no real problem with the article. Though I don't know that the movie is extremely significant, I prefer to keep articles on things that meet at least minimum criteria for significance because I think it makes Wikipedia stronger than a normal encyclopedia. As for sockpuppets, I think it's okay for someone who has been using Wikipedia but may not have had an account (or even a total newbie) to join and cast a reasoned vote, but there clearly has been a totally emotional campaign to keep this article by people who don't understand Wikipedia and don't participate in the community. I hope that Brian Flemming has learned from this process, as he instigated at least some of the campaign on his blog. From what he says, I think he has. For the record, I say all this as someone who would almost certainly strongly disagree with the movie itself.Tox 06:36, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Votes made by anon

  • Keep. This is ridiculous. Christians shouldn't be allowed to start movements to supress atheistic viewpoints without some sort of reason behind it. "I'm a Christian and The God Who Wasn't There goes against my religion" should not cut it! Why this vote is even an issue to such a great site as Wikipedia is COMPLETELY beyond me. As Flemming said a bit down this page, this deletion is completely unwarranted. 3 August 2005 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.204.110.46 (talk • contribs) 18:54, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • First of all, nobody has claimed that this article shouldn't exist because it goes against their religious viewpoints. The only vote to delete this article thus far has been because of a question of notability - not one of religious differences. Stop with the censorship card already. It's far from productive. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 23:05, 3 August 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
  • 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
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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
      • For the record, registering as a member doesn't require that you provide your e-mail. Just so you know.
  • 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)[reply]
        • 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)
          • Calton, I'm not sure why you thought I was cutting and pasting since, when I posted the remark, the comments centered on either the fact that the film is listed on the IMDb or that the film has generated debates. The question I asked was more general, so let me try to clarify. If the Wikipedia is to include some films and not others then surely - in the interest of transparancy - there needs to be a published criterion for inclusion. What is that criteria? Paul - User:81.164.51.164
  • 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
  • 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. It's an impressive documentary movie with many facts not commonly known.
  • 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. I've bought and watched the movie and it's a good one. It should definitely be included on Wikipedia.
  • 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 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. God really isn't there.
  • 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. Please keep this article. You can't censor articles just because you disagree with them. Plus, the movie is correct!
  • 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. In a very logical fashion, this movie brings to the forefront a sobering set of questions about the origins of christianity. What is interesting is that attempts to delete this movie reference from Wikipedia closely parallel the documentary's assertions about how church leaders throughout time have tried to deflect people's attention away from what really happened in that first century; even more compelling given that all of the clues are right there in the Bible itself — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.109.196.59 (talk • contribs) 05:06, August 1, 2005 UTC (UTC)
  • KEEP. Please stop this blatant attempt at censorship! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.107.152.51 (talk • contribs) 05:20, August 1, 2005 UTC (UTC)
  • DELETE THIS PLACE IS TURNING INTO A HIPPY COMUNE AS IT IS!!! get this out of here, shame I'll be over ruled by these pathetic pinko sockpuppteers
  • Keep. No censorship. Especially by religious extremists
  • Keep
  • Keep the article.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_God_Who_Wasn%27t_There&oldid=20245125"