Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FahrenHype 9/11

A none notable Anti Moore film. Possibly add a sentence on the 'Works critising Michael Moore' section on the Michael Moore page, but I don't think this should have it's own article. Darksun 14:51, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * The film's own website has no information; a google search on fahrenhype + peterson gets only one (unrelated) hit. This film does not appear to actually exist in any meaningful form; it is not, at this time, encyclopedic. -FZ 15:23, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Not notable. Delete. Gzornenplatz 15:25, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: Invention. Geogre 15:32, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Although go watch the trailer on the site, havn't laughed that hard since Weeble and Bob's anarchistic jams formed a band :P Darksun 15:53, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Concur with Darksun's suggestion at the top there. Delete. -- Graham  &#9786; | Talk 16:56, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete; not yet notable. Let the article be recreated if/when this film becomes sufficiently famous. Psychonaut 17:06, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Merge into "DVD release" section of Fahrenheit 9/11 and delete. Keep until movie release. Re-evaluate then. Would be a great counterpoint to the original movie but not an article of its own.  No one would look there. -  T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  18:26, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * I agree that having this article would be a good counterpoint (we can put "see also" links between both films), and keeping until release is a reasonable option, but my only concern is that the DVD will be released and still not become notable &mdash; i.e., lackluster sales, making barely a stir on the political scene. If that happens, the Wikipedia will not have served as an impartial reporter &mdash; it will have served as a free promotional vehicle.  (That's why we stick to strictly being a compendium of existing knowledge.)  --Ardonik.talk 23:50, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)
 * 68 hits in a google search. Delete solely due to lack of notability.  To add salt to the wound, Image:FahrenHype 911.jpg looks like a copyvio from the official website.  --Ardonik.talk 18:38, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment: User:*drew has sent a message to me saying that he has informed the webmaster and is awaiting a reply. Please don't flag the image as a copyvio yet.  --Ardonik.talk 19:09, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

Keep - This is done by the Michael and me people, as seen on the daily show and a Varity of right-wing shows. The amount of interviews they have with famous right-wingers will make this eventually hit the news hard on the right-wing side. outfoxed has it's own entry too. *I'm not saying anything at all about poltical slant, I'm simply stating that the movie will be huge amongst the right-wing, it's made by a noteable production company, futures exclusive interviews with major right-wing figures. it just hasn't had it's advertising campaign yet, we delete now, it'll just be re-added it later.


 * It's not the political slant that anyone objects to--it's a question of notability. However noble the intent of an article, the Wikipedia only keeps tabs on things that are important to culture.  There is very little mention of this movie right now.  --Ardonik.talk 06:02, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep! This is a legitimate film and therefore it deserves an article in this encyclopedia. Deleting it would be completely POV. Moore's film had an article months before its release. -- Crevaner 06:07, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * The minute someone accuses me of liberal bias for voting to delete, I'm outta here. I thought my stance on notability vs. politics was clear.  --Ardonik.talk 06:26, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete! Non-notable. One hit on FahrenHype 9/11 Peterson.  Antandrus 06:12, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Antandrus said it all. Ambi 07:32, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Due for release in one month, while not notable now it might be later. -- Ævar Arnfjörð [ Bjarmason]   15:11, 2004 Sep 10 (UTC)


 * It has exclusive interviews with Zell miller and Ann coulter! how could you delete anything with that!
 * Delete. Non-notable, advert for direct-to-video documentary. Wikipedia does not gamble on possible future notability.   &mdash; Gwalla | Talk 22:11, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, non existent, non-notable, promotional. I think we need to be fairly ruthless about attempts to use Wikipedia to add to the "buzz" about upcoming films, books, etc. When the movie is released and has garnered good reviews and media attention it can be recreated. (I don't think anyone would attempt to enforce the usual ban on re-creation of deleted articles if there were good reason for the re-creation). [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 01:44, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. notable. zoney &#09619;  &#09618; talk 20:24, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable, advertising. Key45 09:03, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia is not IMDB. If film becomes notable, add it then. --Improv 11:03, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Who cares about if it might become popular -- if it's not notable now, it doesn't belong here now. Fahrenheit 9/11 could have an article before its release because it was still notable before its release; this is not. Put it back if the future shows our suspicions wrong. - Furrykef 14:19, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, I don't think direct-to-video exactly signals prospects of future notability in any case. - Furrykef 14:26, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Anonymous (and invalid) vote somebody posted at the top, but it had an interesting comment: keep The fact that DICK MORRIS(FORMER ADVISOR TO CLITNON), narrates this makes it instantly notable
 * My counterargument is this is flatly false. Things become notable on their own grounds, not because of who did them (though in such a case the thing in question might be listed on that person's biography page). If Dick Morris did something that nobody gives a flying flip about, it's not notable. That seems to be the case here currently. It can change, of course, but wait until it does. - Furrykef 11:19, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete future event. No evidence of current notability.  If/when the movie is released and becomes notable, the article can be easily recreated.  Regardless of your political affiliation, we should stay consistent with prior decisions that pre-release articles are acceptable only where current notability has been clearly and independently established. Rossami 21:22, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. It, indeed, is available on DVD!--xxxxxx 14:16, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep Is it relevant how much money it made at the box office? No. Keep. --Rebroad 13:08, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. &rarr;Raul654 08:40, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep - The idea that it's "non-notable" is false. DanTD (talk) 13:02, 15 June 2012 (UTC)