Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticisms of Loose Change


 * 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. A quick check indicates this information has already been put back into its parent article, Loose_Change_%28video%29. Proto :: type  10:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Criticisms of Loose Change

 * Delete a user removed info from the Loose Change (video) article and created this page as a way of avoiding criticism of the movie in the article page without even getting consensus for such a move in the talk page of the main article.--Jersey Devil 21:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * keep please do not break WP:AGF, i feel a bit insulted by your "as a way of avoiding criticism". Exactly how is the critisism avoided by creating a entire articla about the ciritsism? Try reading How to break up a page. When the critsism section is half the article, and still contains "Note: the "Loose Change Viewer Guide" is linked in this section because the errors it enumerates are too many to list here.", implying that the critisism should be more than half the article, then per Fahrenheit 9/11 and Fahrenheit 9/11 controversy, it is perfectly legitimit to break it out so. JD, stop assuming you can read my mind. --Striver 21:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Actualy, i would have named the article Loos Change controversy if i wanted to soften/avoid critisism. As for no support in talk page, try reading it.--Striver 21:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete The article Loose Change (video) already contains all this information and is not long enough to justify splitting into a seperate article, nor is the content seperate enough to justify an article of it's own. If the content weren't already on Loose Change (video this would be an obvious merge. WilyD 22:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per WilyD. Dionyseus 22:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per WilyD. —Caesura(t) 23:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Ensure info is put back into main article that this is spun off of.--MONGO 01:44, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per WilyD ,while agreeing with MONGO. Looks like all the info is on the main article page; a cursory comparison before deleting this one would suffice. HumbleGod 01:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutral the AfD was premature as was the article spin-off. There is likely enough criticism of Loose Change to make a sub-article preferable. Either way this AfD goes, the article will likely at some point be re-created... I would also caution discussion on what is to be done with the criticism (which was in the main article) is ongoing. - RoyBoy 800 03:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Obviously when there is enough material to spin it off, it should be done. But there's no rational or precedent for pre-empticely spinning off a section, unless that section is independantly important. WilyD 12:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, however importance (as with notability) is a difficult thing to define. Rather it is the relative length (certainly an indirect measure of importance) which is pertinent. The criticism section in the article is quite sizable and a split is debatable... but I can only see the criticism getting larger as time goes on. - RoyBoy 800 22:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Right, but what's important here is not the size of the criticism, but the size of the total article. Otherwise, you can break it up if it's a topic in it's own right, but here that easily fails the test.  Apply a test like If Loose Change (video) was unworthy of an encyclopaedic article, would Criticisms of Loose Change be worthy of an article? - the answer here is clearly no, so Criticisms shouldn't get it's own article until the size needs of Loose Change demand it.  Whereas even if Toronto was a very short article, one could still justify forking out CN tower because even if Toronto wasn't worthy of an article, CN Tower still would be. WilyD 13:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Merge back to Loose Change. Premature emancipation. -- GWO
 * Merge back to Loose Change. — Reinyday, 17:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge back into Loose Change. POV forks are POV, by definition. If an article's big enough to break up into sub articles it should be broken up into sub articles based on topic, not opinion. Bryan 04:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Bro, you are incorrect. See Fahrenheit 9/11 and Fahrenheit 9/11 controversy, September 11, 2001 attacks and 9/11 conspiracy theories.--Striver 04:58, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Btw, a opinion is a topic. --Striver 04:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete and Merge content back to Loose Change (video). --Aude ( talk contribs ) 04:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep: when articles are too long it always happen that criticism is splitted.--Pokipsy76 10:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. ---Charles 17:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep: The debate is still going on in the talk page. I've looked at both at NIST and the FEMA report on 9/11. The article from this point includes more critism than it's about the loose change and if I can judge the talk page right, it's only gets worse without expanding on the video loose change. This is the topic of the article, right? 81.165.192.118 13:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment While I agree with your argument that the Loose Change article needs significant revision to bring the focus back to the film, including a long hard look at the criticisms section, I do not believe a second article to move the criticisms to does anything but muddy the waters. At present I feel Striver was not correct in being bold and splitting the articles. Thus I am leaning rather heavily towards Deletion.--Rosicrucian 00:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 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.