| Revision as of 22:11, 20 September 2006 editRamsquire (talk | contribs)4,182 edits →[]← Previous edit | Revision as of 00:01, 21 September 2006 edit undoShortfuse (talk | contribs)326 editsm →[]: - Strong Keep.Next edit → | ||
| Line 31: | Line 31: | ||
| *'''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) | *'''Strong Delete''', per nom and also adds that it comes close to violating ]. ] 22:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Strong Keep''', for the reasons noted by Edison (esp. about AfD not being a pitch 'till you win game) and also the fact that this documentary, regardless of the opinions expressed here about its quality or lack of it, very often comes up in discussions on this subject. --] 00:01, 21 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 00:01, 21 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)
- Comment. Article was nominated for deletion before. The result of the previous discussion was keep.--TBCTaLk?!? 01:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment -- see Misplaced Pages:Consensus can change
Morton Devonshire
- Comment. I understand that consensus can change, I'm just mentioning the previous AfD as it contains reasons on why the article was kept.--TBCTaLk?!? 02:09, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment -- see Misplaced Pages:Consensus can change
- 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:
- 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)
- The Danby comment "does not make the film notable" (TBC, just above).
- I believe that anyone can write an Amazon review. (The fact that Amazon sell the video is probably more significant than the review.)
- 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)
- Weak keep. As much as I dislike conspiracy cruft, the movie has been subject to non-trivial works, such as the National Nine News article and CNN segment mentioned by Sparkhead.--TBCTaLk?!? 02:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete nn and soon to be forgotten cruft.--MONGO 04:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per MONGO --Tbeatty 06:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Sparkhead --JRA WestyQld2 06:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
- Weak Keep per TBC SkipSmith 08:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Mongo said it all. Bagginator 09:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom --Geneb1955/CVU 10:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep as per Sparkhead. Metaspheres 11:36, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom --Peephole 13:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Sparkhead. International coverage denotes notability. Lack of wide US coverage is meaningless. · XP · 14:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete unless/until properly referenced "The article ITSELF" does not provide sufficient evidence of its notability (2 reviews which basically trash it completely). However, I'm tempered by the arguments above that it HAS received notable coverage. Zunaid 15:10, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Notable and verifiable film about important subject affecting world politics. Plus, AfD should not be a "Pitch til you win " kiddie carnival game. It was nominated before and the result was keep.Edison 17:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. Crockspot 19:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --Aaron 19:19, 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. Bwithh 20:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. AuburnPilot 22:09, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Delete, per nom and also adds that it comes close to violating WP:Hoax. Ramsquire 22:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep, for the reasons noted by Edison (esp. about AfD not being a pitch 'till you win game) and also the fact that this documentary, regardless of the opinions expressed here about its quality or lack of it, very often comes up in discussions on this subject. --Shortfuse 00:01, 21 September 2006 (UTC)