Wikipedia

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

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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 of the debate was Delete. My count of valid votes is 38 to delete (including 5 delete of merge, 4 delete and merge and 1 delete or transwiki to Wikiquote), 18 keep (inlcuding 1 merge or keep), and 18 merge (including the 'merge ands' and 'merge ors'). As the "merge and/or delete" votes can be taken as saying there shouldn't be a seperate article about this, and the transwiki vote saying that this doesn't belong on Wikipedia, then this is a consensus to delete. Many of the reasons given to delete focused on this article, whereas most of the reasons to keep were along the lines of "an unrelated incident has an article so this should have" - which doesn't explain why this article is notable enough. Thryduulf 15:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie_Sheen_and_Alex_Jones_interviews

edit

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Apparently added due to the fact that consensus was that this interview was just a blip in the actor's bio; Striver created this fork to present the interview in its entirety. Individual interviews aren't notable of mention. This is not about the content; which is already on wiki. It's about how significant an actor's opinion is in the grand scheme of things. What's covered in this article?

  • Charlie Sheen is a member of the 9/11 truth movment, as stated in an interview with Alex Jones
    • fine, belongs on his page and 9-11 truth movment page.
  • Content of interview and arguments regarding 9-11.
    • definitely non-notable. The same arguments have been put forth in 9-11 conspiracy article. No reason to reproduce them just because an actor repeats them.
  • Media reaction
    • non-notable. We don't see Jennifer Wilbanks categorizing every media response to the incident, and a handful of media references is far from a media frenzy.

Gee, looking at the "rules" listed on the Articles_for_deletion page and I fail to see the "Only count people with over 10 edits" rule. For the record I've made edits before (regarding the Oberon programming language) but I didn't bother with an account at that time. Anyway, did it ever occur to you that people with an interest in the subject simply ran accross the Charlie Sheen article via Google or Wikipedia search, saw that it had been listed for "deletion" then decided to say something about that? I hope the "powers that be" stick to the rules as stated, and not with the ones some people seem intent on making up as they go along. Nakedtruth 19:40, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Votes(discounting anon and users with <10 edits: Keep=17, Merge=10, Delete=37' - implicit that nom supports delete. Mmx1 00:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I said below, it's not a vote, just a picture of the opinion among established editors. Excluding new users avoids the bias from newly created accounts and sock/meatpuppets. I'm doing nothing that I haven't already seen "the powers that be" do, and I'm setting a lower threshold than they did.--Mmx1 19:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is not accepted policy to discount the votes of users with low edit counts. Also, accepted policy is that an article should be deleted when a rough consensus to delete has been reached (usually 75%, Not a simple majority), otherwise the article should remain. Seabhcán 15:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is intended not as a vote but as a summary of the body position(AfD isn't a vote to begin with, anyway). I'm not saying Delete/Keep because vote <> some percentage; just giving a summary of a very long vote/discussion page. I'm confounded somewhat that it's official policy that this is not a voting process, but still on the admin pages there was talk over stats of the vote tally for closing admins. Moreover, I've seen it used in practice by closing admins to exclude posters with low edit counts; particularly when there is indication of meat/sockpuppetry. Considering we got an influx of anons from the 911 eyewitness AfD just a few days ago, it's not unreasonable that there are still some socks around. The 75% you cite is one editor's opinion on that talk page; it's left up to editor's discretion and tends to be a wee bit lower in practice. --Mmx1 15:45, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Seabhcán 15:49, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep Has widespread support from others who before had never appeared to publicly support it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.141.47.50 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep Sure, there have been other figures to come out and questioned 9/11, including a former member of Bush's own cabinent, but few interviews have garnered as much interest in as short a period of time. There is too much information on that one page to realistically merge it into Charlie Sheen's page, besides, as someone else pointed out, it's an interview between Sheen AND Jones. Does the "merge" group think it should be "merged" into both pages? Also one has to wonder why we're even having this debate. Is wikipedia running out of hard disk space? Nakedtruth 20:13, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This guy said it best: "No, its creating a breakout article about a event that would dominate the main article, exactly what Wikpedia Policies command in this kind of situations. --Striver 12:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC) "
{unsigned|222.154.13.125}
(anon comment made not by striver --Striver 13:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • While citability is a necessary criteria for inclusion, it's not a sufficient one. It's making a mountain out of a molehill. Yes, he said he's a member of the 9-11 truth movement. That's about as notable as this event gets. You don't need an article discussing the very salient points he's making, especially when there are more intelligent people making those points. Man, don't you realize fame is usually inversely proportional to intelligence and that he's just parroting what he's heard. You might as well go right to the source and quote Alex Jones. Ya'll are aware that the political opinion of actors isn't very notable to begin with, right? First civil engineer to doubt 9-11 theories - notable. First actor - who cares? Since when did actors become authorities of truth?--Mmx1 00:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment User:Striver seems to be trying to make a WP:POINT by creating/editing other articles in order to include links to this one: Showbiz Tonight, A.J. Hammer, Ellis Henican, --mtz206 02:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And that is a problem because? And exactly how is that POINT? --Striver 02:43, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The cources are to Alexs Jones site, since it is there Charlie Sheen gave the intervies and they share conclusions and information, Charlie Sheen returned to Alex Jones to talk more about it. Remberer the articlename? "Charlie Sheen and Alex Jones interviews"--Striver 11:35, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the above, soapboxery Sandstein 04:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 04:52, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge This article is a recent event about a set of theories that claim possible 'conspiracy' which in and of itself is not illegitimate for that. Conspiracy is by definition when a group gets together to commit an act. Like Lincoln's assassination and JFK's which more and more evidence indicates was a conspiracy by others. Alex Jone's does not just come up with quack conspiracy's but has massive documentation behind them. I do not agree with all his assertions but he is well sourced. Charlie Sheen is well known and this article fits wikipedia. He is not the only one who questions the official version of 9-11. Indeed it is not wrong to question, it is wrong to blindly follow anything the government says...Freemen are not Yes men, and Democracy encourages legitimate questions. Some in Academia are beginning to question 9-11 on the evidence alone. --Northmeister 06:22, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment I have changed my vote to merge with 9/11 conspiracy theory, as the best alternative for this article in lieu of discussion with Mmx1 and reconsideration of material's place. I would advocate that other's consider this idea, including Striver. --Northmeister 15:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My resonse: [1]--Striver 16:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Striver makes legitimate points above at my talk page as well. My vote is 'merge', with the addition that if it comes down to the wire over deleting (which I oppose), then it is a Keep. --Northmeister 16:40, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The info was originaly at Sheens article, but people did not want to see it, since it dominated the article: Talk:Charlie Sheen. The only way to cover the article fully and fairly is to give it its own article. --Striver 12:43, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Further, the event is now bigger than just Charlie Sheen, it has been covered on CNN, FOX News, Prisonplanet, Rense, and mutliple other places. We cant have a duplicated of the event on all those articles.--Striver 13:04, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CNN and Fox News do not agree, see the video: [[deprecated source?] First show], [[deprecated source?] second show], [[deprecated source?] Hannity & Colmes].--Striver 13:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So what...Fox news shows every stupid car chase in California too...does each one of those deserve an article? Striver wasn't allowed to put this where he wanted so once again as usual, he misuses Wikipedia to spam our pages with his POV and creates POV fork articles after concensus disallows this junk in every other ___location. Striver tried to put this in several other articles, but was reverted everywhere he went. This ongoing and incessant misuse of Wikipedia resources is near to exhausting the communities patience.--MONGO 02:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and smerge back to either the actor or the conspiracy. This is neither the first nor the last cause a Hollywood actor has been involved in. In fact there is hardly a weird cause that doesn't have an actor supporting it, from PETA to the NRA to Earth First. We can't have a separate article for each of the cross product of "actors" x "causes" - squeeze it into one of them. GRuban 13:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
None of the causes you mentioned are this controversial, in fact, everyone of the causes you mentioned are perfectly mainstream. What makes this even unique is that it is the first time ever that American mainstream media covers someone from Hollywood who staunchly insists that the buildings where brought down by explosives: This has never been done before!--Striver 14:05, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, even the controversy doesn't make it worthy of an article in and of itself. If Pope John XXIII endorsed the Flat Earth Society it would be a valuable addition to each or both of those articles, but not call for a Pope John XXIII endorses the Flat Earth Society. GRuban 14:13, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - a interview on a lame consipracy theory is not encyclopaedic. If it belongs anywhere, it belongs on Wikiquote, so perhaps consider, um, transwikificationalorgarating to there. I don't know what the adverb is, so I made one up. It's already mentioned in the Charlie Sheen article, so no need to splurge any of this back into there. Proto||type 14:01, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikiquote? That is a new one, squizing three CNN coverages and a FOX News coverage to Wikiquote... --Striver 14:06, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, then just delete. And GRuban makes a good point. If George Bush drove a Buick, would we have a George Bush drives a Buick article? No. At best, it would be mentioned in the two individual articles. Proto||type 14:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, if it was covered in 3 CNN shows, and a FOX News show, and Rense.com and people all over his view called him a hero for that, yes we would. Want proof? See: You forgot Poland and Human-animal hybrid. --Striver 15:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is the user's only contribution to wiki
  • In its own way, yes and maybe. Luckily, there is lots of space on wikipedia and we don't need to await the judgement of history before begining an article. I see no reason to delete this article. Seabhcán 18:57, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is the user's sixth contribution to wiki
  • Merge, to a mention on the conspiracy theory and actor pages; many actor pages include excerpts from their wacky opining without forking. Doesn't really need its own article, and I think that an external link to the interview's transcript would be more effective than a running commentary rife with typos. -Dawson 19:06, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If necessary, merge onto 9/11 Truth Movement. But it doesn't make sense to merge onto 9/11 CTs because it would be redundant with a lot of the info -- what is most relevant is the event of him saying it and the public and media response. I would prefer that it were not merged, however, because it is a unique historical event and is already well covered here on it's own. Bov 19:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and cleanup. This needs to be placed on the Charlie Sheen page, but clean it up as well. It doesn't seem fit for Wikipedia in it's current state. ♠ SG →Talk 19:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A separate article? Why, because an actor "dared" to talk about theories that have long existed? --Rishiboy 20:36, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Interviews? an Interview? Because Charlie Sheen spoke? no, not worth an article. If the editors at Charlie Sheen didn't like the box, hey, remove the box. Don't push it into fork-ville. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:05, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Looks like a notable current event by Wikipedia's standards. Whether we like it or not, celebrities make news by doing things that wouldn't make news if non-celebrities did them. And when that happens, Wikipedia tends to find it notable and fair game for an article. --Hyperbole 21:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I find it notable. captbananas 21:54, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Is there a separate Wikipedia article about the occasion when Tara Reid's dress fell off? The Rob Lowe sex tape? Each of Courtney Love's train-wreck television appearances? The difference between an encyclopedia and a newspaper is that the encyclopedia reduces any number of "notable" events to summary form and places them in context within a narrative. Most biographies refer to any number of notable events; it's not appropriate to create discrete articles on everything mentioned in every article. Otherwise, I look forward to pages for each of Eisenhower's heart attacks, the Grateful Dead's concerts, Muhammed Ali's bouts, and George W. Bush's lies. Monicasdude 22:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or else Sheen will hunt us all down and force us to watch..."Men at Work"!--KrossTalk 23:02, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This is bigger than Sheen and should be kept. If you think the government couldn't be involved in something like this, then please Google "Operation Northwoods" and "The PNAC Document - Rebuilding America's Defenses".— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nhb fighter (talk • contribs)
Maybe since the event has created lots of attention? 50'000 votes on the CNN poll, and people wikisearch it, only to find it afd'd?--Striver 23:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It looks to me like someone is resorting to sockpuppetry, which is unfortunate. Still, there are a good number of established users, myself included, who think this article stands better in its current incarnation than merged into Charlie Sheen or 9/11 Truth Movement or whatnot. In other words, the Keep votes are certainly not entirely the result of sockpuppetry. --Hyperbole 23:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, and that is why i dont think there is any suckpupetry. I mean, im the creator and basicly the only guy that have writen anyting, so i have a hard time figuring out who the sockuppeter whould be, i dont think anyone else but me cares enough for the article to do such a thing. I also linked to the article from a swedish site, so a least a few of the anon or new votes are explained from that. Feel free to think its me suckpuppeting when i know its not even necesary, if it makes anyone happier.--Striver 00:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
More likely it's meatpuppets from the 911 Eyewitness/Rick Sigel site who dropped in for that AfD and decided to stay. --Mmx1 00:50, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
...and the Alex Jones page, and the Hannity and Colmes article, and the Showbiz Tonight article, and the Rense.com article, and the Prisonplanet.com article, and the A.J. Hammer article, and the...--Striver 14:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
:D, exactly! EyesAllMine 15:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The entry on the Charlie Sheen page should be something like 1 sentence, saying "on such and such a date, Sheen endorsed the Alex Jones 9-11 conspiracy theory on such and such a show." That's it. The Jones article details his views sufficiently, the Sheen article should just refer to them. The Rense and Prisonplanet and Hannity & Colmes shouldn't even mention it; to them, it's just another interview out of thousands. GRuban 17:53, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • P0wned!!!!. A great multitude of unencyclopedic articles about 9-11 conspiracy theories shall now be created. Most shall be listed in Articles for Deletion. Nary a handful shall be deleted; a glorious number shall be concluded no consensus, keep. For every delete there shall be a matching keep, looks good to me. This has now been organized; our meats are well guilded and our socks are growing strong in numbers and are gaining small edits to avoid your laughable "this user's only edit" accusations. Your puny "official truth" shall be marginalized by the glorious flood of articles singing the praises of our mighty source of all wisdom, Alex Jones (pbuh). Hundreds of barely notable people's articles shall end up as conspiracycruft through some vacuous connection to someone who once said something in an interview. We know your policies and we have learned how to work them. Resistance is futile, prepare to be cruftspammed! — Rainy Day Parade 17:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC) You bet this is this user's first contribution to Wikipedia.[reply]
  • Delete I can't for the life of me understand how this is notable. Most of this information is already on the 9/11 conspiracies article. jacoplane 17:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Explain to me why this is less fitt to have its own article than 2002 Berlin controversy involving Michael Jackson. --Striver 22:55, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Polls ended with over 50 000 people voting [[deprecated source?] and people call this non-notable? --Striver 23:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In that case I would vote to have the information merged with the Michael Jackson article, so I agree with you that i is not very different. Regarding the polls, I think there are tons of polls held every day that don't warrent their own Wikipedia article. I mean, do you think that slashdot users voting on their favorite Monty Python skit warrants an entry? Over 50 000 people voted. jacoplane 23:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The poll is not presented to show that it deserves its own article, it is presented to show that this article is notable by wikpedia standards. --Striver 23:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Incidently, Monty Python has its own article, and you just showed that they both have a poll that was used by a equal amount of people. --Striver 23:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So? Charlie Sheen, Alex Jones (journalist), and the 9/11 Truth Movement also have articles. I'm not disputing that those articles are notable. It's just that I find the article about this interview should not have it's own article. jacoplane 23:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I see it, the 9/11 Truth Movement is a reasonably full page, and Charlie Sheen or Alex Jones (journalist) would be dominated by this information. Although I think this article itself is overloaded and needs trimming, even properly trimmed, I think it will still be too big for any of those three pages. --Hyperbole 03:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The event just expanded to include Ed Asner, should we give him also a copy of the merge? And everybody else that are waiting in line to support Sheen? --Striver 23:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as this is hardly notable. There are hundreds of interviews every day, and dozens of ones which are in some way controversal, not only that, but the theories are mentioned quite a few other places as well. Anyway, even if the event is notable, it's only notable enough to mention within his own personal article. Radagast83 02:50, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not true, read about the latest devlopments, the information dam is breaching, more and more people are getting out of the closet! --Striver 02:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


List of people included as active (not only mentioned) in the article:

Other people mentioned include:

Now, could you again explain to me why this is less notable than 2002 Berlin controversy involving Michael Jackson?--Striver 04:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The 2002 Berlin controversy involving Michael Jackson article is currently undergoing votes for merger with the main Jackson article. Early voting seems to favor Merge, although the Jackson article is already large and can better warrant forks. The Jackson baby at the Berlin balcony article experienced a media frenzy and world wide coverage. By comparison, the Sheen interview is a non-event. Even without the comparison, the Sheen interview is a non-event to everyone but his fans. Your analogy undermines your argument. Ande B 23:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please assume good faith, i did not know there was a difference, i dont appreciate the personal attack on my motives.--Striver 06:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I never did anything of the kind, bring the proof if you are truthfull! --Striver 06:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Striver, come on. This is Wikipedia, so every edit is public. I tend to think that anything you did in the past is not really relevant to this AfD discussion, but just try to be reasonable. jacoplane 06:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"The commision is formed as a United States Congress hearing.", NOT "The commision is a United States Congress hearing.". A big difference. Any more proof for the baseless accusation?--Striver 07:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, as Striver isn't American, he doesn't have the familiarity with American systems and the AJ bullshit doesn't ring on his bullshit detection as it does ours. However, a few points for you:
  • Congressional hearing implies Congress as a body heard the issue. In reality, one congresswomen held a hearing.
  • Showbiz tonight....well, you may not realize it wasn't on CNN, but just from title of the show? This isn't a hard-hitting investigative news show like Chris Matthews or 60 Minutes. They typically cover who's sleeping with who and who's snorting coke this week. Do we have an article on the Brad Pitt/Jennifer Aniston breakup? (actually never mind, we probably do :-( ). How about the nth time Gary Busey checks into the Betty Ford clinic? (a drug rehab clinic)
  • Similarly for Robert Bowman and Morgan Reynolds's claims.
Striver, you might want to consider how credible these people are if they're exaggerating and misrepresenting the significance of things like these. People have been fired for less significant misrepresentations than Bowman and Reynolds are guilty of.
--Mmx1 15:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that the Charlie Sheen/Alex Jones interview isn't notable because it was reported on Showbiz Tonight? Seabhcán 15:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not phrasingly it so black and white, I'm just pointing out that it's not as earth-shatteringly large as it's been presented. It didn't appear on CNN as part of International news, it appeared as part of a fluff show on celebrity gossip. ::::::::--Mmx1 15:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For me that doesn't reach the threshold of 'non-notable'. There are plenty of things on wikipedia that have never been in the news at all, never mind on CNN international news. Should we delete them all? Seabhcán 16:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please read this: [2] --Striver 13:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could the above use please tell why this is his first edit? How did he found out about this afd? --Striver 11:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Isisnosiris, Attributing motivation to others is seldom useful for producing anything other than offense. I don't see any "fear" among these comments, only people who put more emphasis on notability and others who emphasize the content or political context of the article. These are just interests that sometimes coincide and at other times compete with one another. Please avoid the pop psychologizing. Thanks. Ande B 23:18, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How does this fullfill the criteria of a POV fork? Its not trivia if people call out for a "Demonstration of Gratitude". It was covered in the sheen article, but voices was raised since it dominated the article, so in accordance to Wikipedia:How to break up a page, it is given its own page. make sure you read that before you cry out "pov fork", and also read about what POV forking is not.--Striver 14:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yet another one praising him as a hero: "Last week Charlie Sheen became a legend." [4]--Striver 22:15, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Charlie_Sheen_and_Alex_Jones_interviews&oldid=1271337388"