Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/9-11: The Road to Tyranny (2nd nomination)

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 no consensus to deletethe article. Mailer Diablo 03:21, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

9-11:_The_Road_to_Tyranny[edit]

The video described by this page is self-published original research, not from a reliable source, and serves only to promote the video and aggrandize the crank theories of the author, in violation of Wikipedia policies. Gnetwerker 17:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, from WP:V:

Self-published sources: Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. Exceptions may be when a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications. However, exercise caution: if the information on the professional researcher's blog is really worth reporting, someone else will have done so. -- Gnetwerker 21:45, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. -- Gnetwerker 17:07, 14 April 2006 //(UTC)
Keep - WP:NOR applies to original research published on Wikipedia, not Wikipedia articles about original research. It's well-written and roughly NPOV, I see no reason to delete. P.S. -- I also cleaned up the formatting of this AfD per convention. rehpotsirhc 17:18, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, cleanup and source. As it stands now it is WP:NOR as it is a description of the video not attributed to a reputable source. The subject is notable, generating 140,000 hits in Google ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:28, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge onto Alex Jones (journalist) , the author. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:39, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge To Alex Jones, not substantially notable by itself. JoshuaZ 18:47, 14 April 2006 (UTC) Changing to weak keep or merge per talk page. JoshuaZ 04:03, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no substantial citable sources. The blurb on Alex Jones already consists of as much as is appropriate or citable about this film. There was substantial debate and work after the last AfD, which resulted in the page you've seen. Weregerbil and Schizombie have both worked significantly on the article and it still lacks ANY citable sources.--Mmx1 18:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This article has already survived an afd, and the article has not changed substantially since that time. The film is notable, has had widespread distribution, returns many Google hits, and has an IMDB entry. Describing a publicly available film is not original research; the film is the primary source. --Hyperbole 19:00, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Untrue. Weregerbil added the enormous summary. He and Schizombie both made good faith efforts to find sources and found none. The last AfD resulted in no consensus with many editors wanting to see more sourcing. Well, at least four editors have tried and failed to find sources for this. --Mmx1 19:11, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks to me like the overview was added by Mary Read while the previous AfD was still ongoing. It is perplexing to me how one could claim that there is inadequate sourcing for this documentary when it has 24,500 Google hits, of which 352 are unique; ratings on several review sits; and when it is available for public download. Are you really concerned about verifiability?? --Hyperbole 19:26, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The overview deleted (and readded) by Gnetwerker was originally added by Weregerbil after watching the film and noting the 9-11 content of the article at AfD time was only a small piece of the movie. Mary Read proofread most of it during the AfD. Tell me, what is there to say in this article other than to synopsize the movie? 352 ghits is notable these days? --Mmx1 19:33, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Once there has been even a single delete vote on an AfD (excluding the nom), it is ineligible for Speedy Keep. You should change your vote to Strong Keep instead. ⇒ SWATJester

^Ready Aim _Fire! 21:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment In general, IMDB is more useful as a sign of non-notability when a film is not there than a sign of notability when it is. The conditions to be on IMDB are very weak. JoshuaZ 19:04, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Film is higly notable in its own context, first film from the 9/11 truth movement and Alex most famous movie. Does not fullfill any criteria for deletion, specialy not bogus criteria as not finding sources, the entire movie is available for download, you need sources for what? With the same logic, lets delete The Lion King as unsourcable original research.--Striver 19:17, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lion King had media reviews which are cited; nobody cared to review this movie. --Mmx1 19:28, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Once there has been even a single delete vote on an AfD (excluding the nom), it is ineligible for Speedy Keep. You should change your vote to Strong Keep instead. ⇒ SWATJester

^Ready Aim _Fire! 21:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, change to strong keep--Striver 11:20, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability is surely satisfied here; better data organization to have an article on the film, separate from the Alex Jones article. Kestenbaum 19:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOR. The author/producer is the poster. It's no different than if someone put their blog up. The medium used to express their opinion is shouldn't be the the basis to determine inclusion.--Tbeatty 20:20, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Looking at the page's history, it seems Striver had added it. I don't think Striver is Alex Jones, much as he loves him. Шизомби 23:05, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 21:21, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please review Wikipedia:Speedy_keep, your votes do not meet the criteria for speedy keep. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 21:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Invoking WP:NOR is preposterous. The criteria is whether this is a notable documentary or an insignificant self-published work. I'll change my vote if I or someone else comes up with some mainstream media references to this documentary. Gamaliel 22:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP doesn't have a guideline for notability of movies, which makes things difficult to decide what to do about them. IMDb's criteria for inclusion was mentioned above; it's at http://us.imdb.com/updates?update=title if anyone is curious. There are a couple of movies I had a devil of a time submitting to IMDb, though I'd bought one in a video store and the other from online after hearing about it (if I recall correctly) on Leno. Factual observations about a primary source that others can consult and make the same observation are AFAIK permissible. E.g. you don't need to cite a secondary or tertiary source to note that a given person is in a movie, or to quote it. Such sources are needed when the article starts getting deeper; what the meaning or ramification of things are, whether it's good or not, etc. See the part of Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary_and_secondary_sources that states "In some cases, where an article (1) makes descriptive claims the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable adult without specialist knowledge, and (2) makes no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claims, a Wikipedia article may be based entirely on primary sources (examples would include apple pie or current events), but these are exceptions." Шизомби 22:53, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per rehpotsirhc. If we apply the criterion of the nominator, then General relativity would also have to go! Lambiam ^Talk 00:06, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment incorrect. General relativity has been written about in scholarly journals, making it notable. This video, however, has not. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 00:25, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, can you read? If so, please try to exercise that capability before calling someone else incorrect. (1) The stated reason for nomination is "original research", and not "non-notable". (2) The nominator requires that the article does not describe something that is original research (instead of the article itself not being OR). Lambiam ^Talk 01:01, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is the interpretation of one editor on watching the video OR? It's a good question; and I'm not fully decided on the answer yet. --Mmx1 01:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And what about the interpretation of one editor on reading an encyclopedia article? Although not Original Research (I hope), it may occasionally produce quite Original Results :) Lambiam ^Talk 01:32, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's why you should never cite wiki itself in an article. That's pretty well established policy. --Mmx1 01:42, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I meant real encyclopedias like l'Encyclopédie. ou dictionnaire raisonné des sciences, des arts et des métiers, the Encyclopædia Britannica, the Große Brockhaus, or the Большая Советская Энциклопедия. Lambiam ^Talk 08:59, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

General Theory of Relativity would not be on Wikipedia if it had not been peer reviewed and especially if it had been posted by Einstein himself. It would have been an Original Research vanity posted by Einstein until it could be reviewed by an outside source and validated. In fact, I think that's how science treated it when it was originally published. It's certainly how Einstein treated Quantum Mechanics. This is a blog that was committed to film and posted by the author.--Tbeatty 02:02, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

General Theory of Relativity would also not be on Wikipedia if the criterion set forth by the nominator is literally applied. The point is not that General relativity should not be here, and not even that the nominated article should necessarily stay, but that there is something wrong with the given reason for nomination by itself, independent of the merits of any past, present, or future articles. It is a garbled rendering of WP:NOR, in which the text of the article is confused with the topic of the article, a confusion that is also common for WP:NPOV. Lambiam ^Talk 09:08, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KeepWhile I do not agree with what the movie has to say, I do not see anything wrong with this article. By the reasons given for deletion, we should technically also delete the Fahrenheit 9/11 page. It would be nice if there were some more of criticisms or reactions to the film though.--DCAnderson 02:09, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The movie is mentioned in the book Colloidal Silver : Making the Safest and Most Powerful Medicine on Earth for the Price of Water by Mark Metcalf (no, not that one) page 115. Eh. More notably, a college professor had named a course after the movie and was going to use Jones as material for it. Jon Sanders, "Academic Insanity at North Carolina Wesleylan" FrontPageMagazine.com, April 18, 2005. However, she died in November 2005: http://www.ncwc.edu/News/Archive/2005/0000112205-01.htm If that's not fuel for the conspiracy theories, I don't know what is! Шизомби 02:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC) There was also a follow-up column, Jon Sanders, "Jihad Jane Attacks Frontpage Writer" FrontPageMagazine.com, May 10, 2005 Шизомби 02:50, 15 April 2006 (UTC) Sorry, one more follow-up on the Jones/Professor/911 story from FPM, Mike Adams, "Jihad Jane and the Jews" FrontPageMagazine.com, April 5, 2005 Шизомби 02:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Whether or not it is "fuel for the conpiracy theories" (and if that's the best you can do that must be a very weak flame) is irrelevant for separate notability. The FrontPage reference could be construed as going towards WP:N but the rest is useless. In any case, it still makes more sense to merge or delete it. A single mention does not make a movie notable. JoshuaZ 02:18, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I don't make anything of her death, I was thinking the tinfoil hat crowd would; just because I'm finding info on this movie doesn't mean I believe it. There was a brief mention of the movie in the NY Post archived here:www.infowars.com ^{infowars.com is fringe, does not meet our sourcing guidelines and should not be used}/saved%20pages/alex/page_6.htm]. There original link to the Post is linked from here[1] but is inactive. Шизомби 02:28, 15 April 2006 (UTC) There's criticism of the movie at Free Republic[www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1013296/posts] but I don't know if that's an article or a blog posting, and whether it merits inclusion. Шизомби 02:41, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge any relevant material to Alex Jones. Per nom.--Jersey Devil 08:23, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable film, no balanced coverage in major media found. Article is an utter mess with little hope of being salvageable to something balanced. Weregerbil 11:52, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The previous AFD was closed 5 weeks ago. A relist this quickly is disrespectful of the previous discussion, especially since it received a reasonable number of comments. Give the article some time to evolve after a failed AFD, at least 3 months or so. At a bare minimum, the previous discussion and comments ought to be considered as part of the current discussion, since it was so very recent. (I would say delete for notability reasons otherwise). Derex 15:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was no consensus the last AfD so I fail to see how it's "disrespectful" considering the ambivalence that exists about this article. It might be disrespectful if the outcome were clearly delete or keep but that's not the case. Moreover, the article received a lot of attention and editing after the AfD, especially from User:Weregerbil. --Mmx1 19:22, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was not even remotely close to being a delete. And, there's not a chance in hell it would be deleted by an experienced admin now if the inputs of those prior commentors are weighed. So, it's disrespectful in the sense that it seeks to disregard that prior & quite recent input with very little time for the article to evolve since. This is pure AFD shopping. Derex 04:23, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, so far it is 55% to 45% in favor of delete or merge, so your idea of "not even remotely" is somewhat out of whack. -- Gnetwerker 05:13, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not by the standards of AFD it's not. I'll say it again, it was not even remotely close to deletion. And I personally think it ought to go, but those prior comments ought to count as well. Derex 05:57, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Alex Jones...has 906,000 googles, virtually all of them blog entries.--MONGO 15:47, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. What would Zac Moussaoui do, if he would be here right now...? - Darwinek 16:23, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's that supposed to mean? --Mmx1 19:22, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That he's a quite nice guy. --Darwinek 20:12, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Alex Jones--Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:29, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- to here: 8 Delete, 8 Keep, 2 Merge -- Gnetwerker 19:23, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable, possibly smerge to Alex Jones. Sandstein 10:08, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The previous afd is irrelevant. The movie is notable enough, I say keep it.--God Ω War 06:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this nn OR/propaganda film.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! 07:33, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - verifiable. For great justice. 23:32, 19 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.