Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TerrorStorm (2nd Nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 was delete, discounting a multitude of votes for the usual reasons. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 00:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TerrorStorm[edit]

A completely non-notable 9/11 (and everything else under the sun) conspiracy theory video. Doesn't even have an IMDB entry. It was released this year, but only seven articles show up in Google news, two of which are brief announcements of screenings and one is a one sentence mention. GabrielF 01:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where were those screenings announced? - Mgm|(talk) 10:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See: [1] for the news coverage. Of the 8 articles one is a blog post, one is a brief announcement of the screening of two films in Alachua FL, one is a brief announcement of the screening of six films in Kansas City, one is a one line mention of the premier of two films in Oregon, one is from something called Free Market News Network Corp, the "Click here for Full Story" link goes directly to Alex Jones' website, another is a one line mention of the film in an article in Orange County Weekly. One is a two paragraph announcement of a screening in Austin (on a city events type website not a newspaper). The last one points to something called Uruknet in Italy but when I click the link I get what I think is an Italian 404 error. GabrielF 23:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom--Peephole 01:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Tom Harrison Talk 02:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, non-notable. Fails WP:NOT. Morton devonshire 02:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Very entertaining stuff! Two things could greatly improve this article: 1) Some kind of popularity data indicating that people are actually paying attention to this video. Sales? Downloads? So far all we have are "testimonials" type stuff (referring to Matthew Bellamy and that other guy) which really proves nothing. Admittedly, I don't know where to get this data either, but if someone can show it has a lot of viewers, I'll gladly vote to keep. 2) Maybe it's just me, but the "Contents" section of the article seems jumbled and hard to follow. Anyway, I'd lean toward keeping this article, with a tad more evidence of notability. Of course, I think the ideas in the video are inane, but documenting influential conspiracy theories - no matter how inane - has always struck me as useful. And fun.My Alt Account 02:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If it's NN, it's not influential.–♥ «Charles A. L.» 15:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Duh, but it's not NN and it is influential Mujinga 22:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. —Khoikhoi 05:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Jmancuso 08:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete More conspiracy theory nonsense.--MONGO 09:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Distributed by By Infowars.com On Google Video. Any notable film would be released by a studio into a cinema or at least have independant new coverage, which I couldn't find. -- Mgm|(talk) 10:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Mgm. --Aude (talk contribs as tagcloud) 12:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom—(Kepin)RING THE LIBERTY BELL 12:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per 210k google hits. --Striver 13:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Just so that others won't be misled, it's actually about 420 unique ghits. zephyr2k 17:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
420/1000 is a very high number. Unique hits only consider the first 1000 hits. --Striver 12:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Thanks for the info. Will keep that in mind. I learn something new everyday. zephyr2k 22:59, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete you know what? Take and delete this, it will be a nice monument to the biased frenzy that is raveging wikipedia. --Striver 13:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Mongo. Also it looks to fail WP:NN as Mgm points out. JungleCat talk/contrib 15:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per MONGO. --Mmx1 15:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--ChaplineRVine(talk ¦ ✉) 17:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per MONGO. Pseudotumor 17:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete cruft factory, see also WP:NOT for why this shouldn't be on wikipedia--I-2-d2 17:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Please keep and enhance this entry. It's most noteworthy for the insight given into propaganda, the mind manipulation with which we are bombarded and saturated. No, it will probably never garner the notoriety of major studio productions, most all of which will be found in this wiki. Please, people, take this film and its message to heart. -- from an erstwhile Fortune 50 ad man. —— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.163.45.11 (talk • contribs)
— Possible single purpose account: 24.163.45.11 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
Comment Or more like a question I know what Fortune-500 is. What is "Fortune 50" ? ;-) JungleCat talk/contrib 21:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User's first contribution. GabrielF 22:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just trying to keep a light humor. - :-) JungleCat talk/contrib 00:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Humour? What's funny is that bigots want to delete this article Mujinga 22:49, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mujinga, no personal attacks please. I don't think those users whose input is "delete" are just a bunch of bigots as you call them. Thanks. JungleCat talk/contrib 06:10, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes apologies, it was not my intention to offend, i should have said "editors who appear to be acting in a bigoted fashion" since there appears to me to be some sort of war going on between a few editors here over various 9/11 pages. I'm not a part of it, I just think that the TerrorStorm page is a worthy addition to Wikipedia project and it frustrates me that some people with a (somewhat) hidden agenda want to delete it Mujinga 12:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it fails Wikipedia:Notability (films) (which is a proposed criteria by the way) and you really can't have much of a case if you have to rely on Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. GabrielF 23:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oi oi oi. Check your POV GabrielF. And check point 1 of Wikipedia:Notability (films) - "The film has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the film and its creators/producers". Mujinga 22:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see how two paragraphs in "Austin 360" counts as "multiple non-trivial published works" but I guess I must be blinded by my POV. That or maybe you should consider checking your POV. GabrielF 23:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I believe someone who maintains a page called User:GabrielF/911TMCruft might get a bit befuddled by a certain point of view, but yes, under the proposed Wikipedia:Notability (films) there are requirements for a film and I must admit that so far I haven't found the references for "multiple non-trivial published works" which discuss TerrorStorm. The film is very well discussed on the internet but of course paradoxically those sources are considered trivial by Wikipedia. I still believe that this is a notable film but i appreciate that this needs to be established under wiki guidelines. I dont have time to search for more references, I hope somone else can provide them. Or alternatively, perhaps we can consider the option that this is a notable film precisely becuase it is growing in fame despite having neither an IMDB reference nor a full cinematic release. Mujinga 12:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per various excellent points established by GabrielF. My Alt Account 00:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. OhNoitsJamie Talk 06:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I was actually going to vote keep, but after reviewing the purposed Wikipedia:Notability (films), there seems to be no doubt that this film doesn't meet purposed notabiliy criteria. Any relevant info can be placed in the Alex Jones page.--Jersey Devil 07:00, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep valuable article. Simon 16:25, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Mongo. More cruft by Striver. --Tbeatty 17:47, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The film doesn't even have an IMDb entry. This is effectivelly advertizing for a conspiracy nut.--Cúchullain t/c 22:11, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete More cruft that needs to go to the abyss. Æon Insanity Now!EA! 22:20, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Was this article meant as a joke?Bagginator 11:37, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELELTE THIS ARTICLE --- IT IS THE TRUTH!!!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Afcb4ever (talk • contribs) . — Possible single purpose account: Afcb4ever (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.

  • Delete per GabrielF: we don't do truth, we do verifiability. That means that someone else, a reliable third-party source, needs to report on things. In this case that hasn't happened and the film itself misses our proposed guidelines for films by some way. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Alex Jones is a outlandish rumor-mongerer claiming to be a serious researcher. He is a conspiracist crackpot. Not notable. Not logical. Not worth an entry.--Cberlet 00:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Unfeasibly well known film. what is with the sudden nomination of all of Alex Jones works?--Pussy Galore 02:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Because people think the creator of all these articles is trying to promote Jones' works as something notable, regardless of whether or not they actually are.--Cúchullain t/c 05:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Doesn't it seem to be the case that they have been nominated then, without thought as to their notability?--Pussy Galore 11:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, it's clear that notability has nothing to do with this. It's all a massive conspiracy to hide the truth. My Alt Account 12:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm sorry to all those who do not agree with the contents of the film, and/or it's lack of advertising, but it's a well known and controversial film nonetheless. I firmly believe a unbiased synopsis of the film should be availible on Wikipedia. Why don't you people make a discussions page and argue what you disagree with in the film rather than censoring the entire thing? --Smpz 5:43, 11 September 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.173.240.184 (talk • contribs) . — Possible single purpose account: 67.173.240.184 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
Comment the above comment was in fact written by an anonymous user. User Smpz does not seem to exist. Pascal.Tesson 07:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am an actual person, with an actual opinion. Smpz 05:00, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per nomination. Crockspot 16:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. (Note that even some "illegal" Star Trek fan films have IMDB entries, so you can't claim the IMDB's failure to include the film is biased.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • ***KEEP!***: very informative to historic events that HAVE HAPPENED! Declassified events now shown to people that have NEVER been before...the media is at fault for not splashing alex jones all over the place...its called tyranny... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.57.219.233 (talk • contribs)
User's first edit. GabrielF 04:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP!: While some may consider this to be the rantings of a crackpot it is widely discussed on the net and therefore deserves to have an unbiased mention. Some of the points raised in this film do also need further investigation and it cant all be dismissed without more careful review —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 150.237.47.4 (talk • contribs) 13:18, September 12, 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep* This article is informative and gives information on a film of great interest to some people, why should it be deleted just because in some opinions it is a conspiracy theory video, have you ever considered that any information is valuable and that we should not delete it when it is of neutral bias and harms no-one to keep it on this website? Jonno123 22:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)— Possible single purpose account: Jonno123 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic..[reply]
    • Comment for closing Admin I find it interesting that these possible single purpose accounts find their way to AfD so quick. I suspect that there are dozens of these accounts created. All used by a single person to troll. This person will do several edits using these socks (one here, one there over several days or weeks) to look legit, then use the account as needed. If you question them, they understand Wiki rules fully, or they "cannot recall" past usernames. Hmmm. BTW, I was referring to the true socks, of course. JungleCat talk/contrib 23:34, 12 September 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/TerrorStorm_(2nd_Nomination)&oldid=1144703333"