Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Charlie Sheen and Alex Jones interviews

Charlie Sheen the Engineer
As far as I can tell, Charlie Sheen never graduated high school. He claimed to the LA times that he was offered a scholarship to Univ of Kansas, due to his remarkable baseball skills.

--Mmx1 06:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I heard this somewhere, but can't find myself that he has a degree. So I retract the statement. My bad, thanks. --Northmeister 06:48, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

How about trying to address the points he raised, instead of engaging in cheap personal attacks?--Striver 12:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Northmeister claimed credentials for him on the basis that he's an engineer, based (I think) on my statment that "engineer questioning 9-11" is significant, "actor questioning 9-11" is not. The credential unfortunately didn't wash out. Cheap personal attacks? Questioning his academic qualifications is fair game. A personal attack is calling him a cokehead. --Mmx1 15:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * That may be close to a correct call though...he has had a history of drug related problems, --MONGO 12:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Merging
I think the best option is to 'merge' this with the 9/11 conspiracy theory article. Hence I change my vote to merge. --Northmeister 15:48, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * 9/11 conspiracy theory is already 103kb long. Theres no room there. Seabhcán 08:55, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * What about creating an article with 'notable' 9/11 conspiracy believer's which would include this pages material (truncated) together with other notable persons who have joined the chorus of those who question 9/11 and their observations? Or maybe truncate this material to fit into the above or into Sheen's and the above article.  Otherwise, may as well keep it as is I think. --Northmeister 13:56, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Blog?
The daily updates to this article makes it resemble a blog, which is not what Wikipedia is for. --mtz206 03:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Dates are added for clarity. Blogs are first hand sources, this article is not.--Striver 14:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Dating events for clarity is one thing, but providing a daily tally of events as they occur is not consistant with an encyclopedic summary of events (which is what this article should be if it survives AfD). --mtz206 22:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Have you forgot that it is a standart Wikipedia principle to do that in cases of current events? Just go see any other current even article for a example of daily updates ha the events unfould. --Striver 23:41, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I do think that some of these days contain so little information that they should be merged into larger sections, e.g., "March 23-27," etc. As it stands, it seems like half the page is in big bold font, which is not ideal for readability. --Hyperbole 03:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that could be argued. Im still expanding on the article, if any section remains to small, it can arguably be merged into another. --Striver 04:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete POV
It seems that most of the 'Delete' voters have strong POV against Sheens views. This should not and cannot be a reason to delete the article. Calling non-acceptance of the official 911 theory 'lame' just shows the ignorance of the voter. The official theory includes the claim that the pentagon plane was vaporised by a jet fuel fire. If that were true, then all planes would be in serious trouble each time they start their engines. As a physicist, I think the claim that jet fuel can vaporise metal is 'lame', but I'm not voting to delete the 9/11 Commission Report article. Seabhcán 12:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the left landing gear was laying outside the Pentagon while the majority of the rest of the plane disintegrated.--MONGO 12:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, that makes sense... not. Do you know the powers needed to vaposize over 60 tons aluminium? You are really suggesting that power was contained in the jet fuel? --Striver 13:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * There were aircraft parts all over the place...the term vaporize has been (not surprisingly) miscued by those moronic websites you keep pushing....they meant that it disintegrated...or vaporized...but they don't mean it "disappeared". They collected over 7,000 pieces of aircraft from the Pentagon...gee, wonder why the "missle hit the pentagon" folks seem to never mention that...golly.--MONGO 13:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, 7 000 pieces? With a combined wheith of? 1 ton? 2 tons? did all the 7 000 pieces weight more than 40 tons? Even if so, did the jet fuel manage to vaporize 20 tons of aluminium? I dont think so. I dont care how warm it gets, Jet fuel does not vaporize aluminium, ever. Where did the two gigantic engines go? Did they also vaporize? --Striver 14:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


 * In fact, can you confirm that the all the pieces took more than one truck load to transport away? Did it even take one single truck load? --Striver 14:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Again, it just a word, and it is being misused...examine this image I link and you'll see a whole buch of folks in white hazmat suits near the orange crane, just to the upper left of the main impact area at the Pentagon...that pile of grey debris there is the remains of the aircraft. They are in hazmat due to the biohazard issue of the people killed.--MONGO 14:07, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Do you have an image of the landing gear? Seabhcán 14:12, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I used to but I recently had to recover my computer so I have to check my files and discs...I will post it if i find it.--MONGO 14:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * And i am supposed to belive that this was transformed to that pile of rubble? --Striver 15:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Back to the original POV issue. I'm not voting againt the article because I don't believe in it. I'm voting against it because the specific issue (an actor has an interview) is not that notable. Remember, Wikipedia is not supposed to reflect "the truth", just "the truth as the world sees it". If the world is wrong, Wikipedia should be wrong too. GRuban 14:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't buy the non-nobable argument. Wikipedia is full of far less notable stuff. There are tens of thousands of articles on characters from 1980's computer games, for example. Yet here we are debating the notability of a controversial interview between two well known people about an event that 100% of humanity knows about. And the topic recieves 10,000s Google hits. The very fact that 60+ users have voted proves notability. I can't see any Deletion policy rules which this article would come under. Seabhcán 14:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * More than half of those 60+ users are specifically voting that it's not notable. There are considerably more computer and video game players than there are conspiracy buffs. I have nothing against either hobby - the first builds hand-eye coordination, while the second builds political skills and a healthy distrust of the government - but just as there can be notable and non-notable video game character articles, and notable and non-notable conspiracy theory articles. Carmen Sandiego the video game character is better known (more notable) than Charlie Sheen, yet you don't see a separate article detailing each and every appearance of her in each of her games or TV shows. Similarly you shouldn't see a separate article on each appearance or view of Charlie Sheen. Glom them together under his article. GRuban 14:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Why is there a need to delete this article? Its a current event and a developing topic, I think that the wise thing to do is just leave it be. In a few months we can re-visit it and see it is notable then. Seabhcán 15:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not "developing". Charlie Sheen said he agrees with Alex Jones and then parroted some of the things he said. Bunch of people called him brave, others called him a coke-snorting looney. It's not like he's contributing any new developments to the arguments. It's quite hyperbole to say 100% of humanity knows both these guys. About as many people know Howard Stern and Hugh Hefner, do we have an article for every time Hefner shows up on Stern's show? --Mmx1 15:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I said that 100% of humanity know about the event they were discussing, ie. 9/11. Personaly, before I'd read this article I han't heard of Alex Jones. Seabhcán 15:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

There was a fourth planed show on the same topic, involving, belive it or not, a member of the whietwhash commission! Guess what? He chickened out :)

There is a demostration of gratidute today. People go out and on a demostration of gratitude, and you call it non-notable? White is indeed black. --Striver 15:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Or more likely that he felt his presence would have lent legitimacy to the claims he's refuting. --Mmx1 15:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Vs. Michael Jackson
A couple of thoughts about comparing the Sheen/Jones article to the 2002 Berlin controversy involving Michael Jackson: In summary, while the Sheen/Jones event might be considered worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia, its current structure is not very encyclopedic. The Jackson article provides a suitable model for the encyclopedic mention of such an event. It should summarize the event, provide its context, provide a few relevant links. --mtz206 17:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Not denying Sheen's notability, Michael Jackson is more notable by an order of magnitude.
 * Rather than detailing each day's new revelation, the Jackson article provides a brief synposis in narrative form of the event.
 * The Jackson article does not try to provide links to every media mention of the event.
 * The Jackson article does not attempt to provide transcripts of the event's related media coverage.
 * The Jackson article does not include a large section of "statements by the two, and not as necearly verified facts" (see ).
 * The Jackson article provides three external references that neutrally report on the event. (Sheen/Jones includes an incredible number of links to PrisonPlanet.com and other Jones-related websites).


 * Your arguement is a strong one for improving the article, but does not support deletion. Seabhcán 17:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


 * It does, however, add support to the notion that the article, standing by itself, is not notable or would be better merged with the Sheen article or some other related topic. As to the  2002 Berlin controversy involving Michael Jackson article, that one is currently undergoing a vote for merger with the main Michael Jackson article.  Early comments seem to favor merger.  The Jackson Berlin article started life when it was a current event with wide-spread interest.  I don't recall such wide-spread media coverage of Sheen's non-notable interview. Ande B 22:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Objection to decision to delete

 * I would like to record my strong objections to this decision to delete and also to point out that there are in fact 30 votes to keep not 18. I also only count 31 Delete votes and 18 Merge votes. Seabhcán 15:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I would like to second that. The count was biased and did not include all keeps. I protest. 38-30 is not a consensus to delete, consensus by all voting standards is above majority which is fifty percent plus one vote; near 60-70% of total vote by the way. --Northmeister 15:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Please read the Guide to deletion and the summary I wrote when deleting it, which explains how I arrived at the figures I did and why I made the decision I did. Discounting votes by new and anon users is normal and AfD isn't a vote anyway. This is being discussed at Deletion review. Thryduulf 16:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * AfD isn't a vote; it's an attempt to determine a rough consensus. If a consensus is not reached, the page should be kept.  That's black-letter policy, and I don't think anything resembling a consensus was reached in this case.  --Hyperbole 20:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

This deletion is a scandal, i demand the article to be undelted right now! --Striver 17:25, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Thryduulf, I have read the policy, and frankly you're not following it. There's no "rule" that people with less than X number of edits must be "discounted". According to the policy "civil" and "logical" comments, even by new users, shouldn't be discounted. You clearly didn't follow that rule. Nakedtruth 18:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Articles_for_deletion "...Unregistered and new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but their recommendations may be discounted..." -- GRuban 19:38, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * GRuban, you only gave part of the quote. "Civil" and "logical" comments by new users aren't to be discounted.  Nakedtruth 22:05, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Where does it say that? --Sam Blanning(talk) 22:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The full passage is: "Unregistered or new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but their recommendations may be discounted, especially if they seem to be made in bad faith (for example, if they misrepresent their reasons). Conversely, the opinions of logged in users whose accounts predate the article's AfD nomination are given more weight." Thryduulf 22:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)