Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Economic and social consequences of the Innocence of Muslims movie controversy


 * 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. The Bushranger One ping only 19:22, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Economic and social consequences of the Innocence of Muslims movie controversy

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

It's unclear at this point whether this film even exists (see 2012 U.S. diplomatic missions attacks and refs there), on top of a lack of information specifically on economic and social issues (that isn't better covered elsewhere.) We shouldn't have an article on a controversy about something that may not exist. – 2001:db8:: (rfc &#124; diff) 06:06, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The movie may... NOT exists??? If that's true it's really unbelievable what disinformation arrives at! Maurice Carbonaro (talk) 07:02, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Speedy Redirect to 2012 U.S. diplomatic missions attacks red dog six  (talk) 07:06, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Delete Nothing here that isn't already mentioned in the main article. Economic consequences? ... doubtful Alandeus (talk) 07:22, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Covered at Innocence of Muslims and 2012 U.S. diplomatic missions attacks in greater depth, and not a useful search term.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:48, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * In fact, Speedy delete: A10. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:54, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per Rob's argument. We already have established articles where this kind of coverage can be included. It is far too premature to have a spin-off article like this. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 15:09, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge what little is usable to Innocence of Muslims or 2012 U.S. diplomatic missions attacks. The detail about the farmhouse I hadn't seen before.  I should point out that the premise of this article, that the attacks are a "consequence" of the film, however widely repeated, is absurd - Al Qaida attacked U.S. embassies and they attacked on September 11, and they didn't need the film as excuse, it was just handy cover.  You don't bring RPGs to a spontaneous demonstration. Wnt (talk) 16:11, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - all this info is in the article on the attack and doesn't add anything. It also attempts to draw a cause-and-effect, while in reality there are numerous RS sources saying that the movie was used as a pretext. Thus, the article as a whole would be taking a particular view and using that.  -- Activism  1234  00:11, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. The film exists and the "consequences" are better covered elsewhere. Religious controversy aside, as a cinematic effort, it stinks. I have rarey seen such autrociously bad scripting, acting, green screen effects, and over-dubbing. Seriously, a poorly made film.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 07:01, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note that my initial objection to the article being about a controversy over a possibly non-existent film was a bit specious, since there could have been a controversy even if it was entirely fake. (Which is also still unclear past the YouTube clip, but not that relevant here.) That said, still firmly Delete per other initial reasons given and ones brought up; material is minimal and better suited for existing articles, and cause-and-effect is inappropriately drawn per Activism1234's comment and lack of sources to back up even the article title. – 2001:db8:: (rfc &#124; diff) 16:06, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Well... even short films that never get past Youtube are considered films and, however bad this one is cinematically, it has been confirmed as an actual feature length project that did have at least one poorly received public screening before creating such a furor. Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 00:26, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete And the article contains...nothing. It seems as if a stub was thrown up in the anticipation that there will be economic and social consequences from the film at some point down the road. Articles should cover things that currently exist, not things that might exist in the future. Nwlaw63 (talk) 01:56, 15 September 2012 (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.