Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/911: In Plane Site (second nomination): Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 22:09, 20 September 2006 editAuburnPilot (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users27,289 edits []: delete← Previous edit Revision as of 22:11, 20 September 2006 edit undoRamsquire (talk | contribs)4,182 edits []Next edit →
Line 30: Line 30:
*'''Comment''' No vote from me, but just wanted to say that's the most idiotic title for a 9/11 documentary or any documentary for that matter that I have come across. ] 20:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC) *'''Comment''' No vote from me, but just wanted to say that's the most idiotic title for a 9/11 documentary or any documentary for that matter that I have come across. ] 20:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per nomination. ] 22:09, 20 September 2006 (UTC) *'''Delete''' per nomination. ] 22:09, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
*'''Strong Delete''', per nom and also adds that it comes close to violating ]. ] 22:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 22:11, 20 September 2006

911: In Plane Site

First deletion reason: Conspiracy cruft video. Fails to assert notability by reference to any reliable sources except a small town newspaper and the Portland alt-weekly (which even my garage band warrants). Fails Misplaced Pages:Notability (films), WP:RS, WP:NOR, WP:NOT, and WP:VAIN. Not available on Blockbuster or Netflix. Morton devonshire 01:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Strong Keep: Regarding notability and reliable sources, the video has been broadcast on Australian television, and a big stink was raised . The video is reviewed on Amazon. The producer of the video has been interviewed on CNN . While you might dislike the article, it clearly passes notability tests, is in no way original Misplaced Pages research (not even close), and is not a vanity entry. Sparkhead 02:18, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete It was shown on Australian free-to-air TV as a filler against The Path to 9/11. That Michael Danby called it "laughable" does not make the film notable. Morton may be wrong about WP:VAIN, but he's right about everything else. CWC(talk) 02:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Though it's true Michael Danby calling the movie "laughable" does not make the film notable, neither does it make the film non-notable.--TBCTaLk?!? 02:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment (added after User:Zunaid voted): TBC argued for notability on 3 grounds. Here are 3 counter-arguments:
  1. The Danby comment "does not make the film notable" (TBC, just above).
  2. I believe that anyone can write an Amazon review. (The fact that Amazon sell the video is probably more significant than the review.)
  3. CNN interviews lots of people. Being interviewed by CNN or FOX is not a strong claim to notability; being the subject of news stories from multiple news shows, news agencies and/or newspapers would be a lot more significant.
Cheers, CWC(talk) 17:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Categories: