Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/9/11: Press for Truth: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Crockspot (talk | contribs)
8,746 edits
Line 43: Line 43:
*'''Delete''' this documentary isn't even listed on IMDB. Mention of this video in [[Jersey Girls]] suffices. --[[User:AudeVivere|Aude]] <small>([[User talk:AudeVivere|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/AudeVivere|contribs]] [[User:AudeVivere/Contributions|as tagcloud]])</small> 02:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' this documentary isn't even listed on IMDB. Mention of this video in [[Jersey Girls]] suffices. --[[User:AudeVivere|Aude]] <small>([[User talk:AudeVivere|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/AudeVivere|contribs]] [[User:AudeVivere/Contributions|as tagcloud]])</small> 02:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
* '''Delete''' per above. &mdash;<span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">[[User:Khoikhoi|<font color="">Khoikhoi</font>]]</span> 03:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
* '''Delete''' per above. &mdash;<span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">[[User:Khoikhoi|<font color="">Khoikhoi</font>]]</span> 03:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
* '''Delete''' per nomination. [[User:Crockspot|Crockspot]] 04:56, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 04:56, 15 September 2006

9/11: Press for Truth

{{PROD}} tag removed in a particularly WP:DICK-violating manner, but to the main point: It's more of the latest rash of 9/11 "Truth Movement" cruft. The article doesn't assert any notability, mainly because it has none. Only 344 ghits [1], almost all of which are sales pitches, obscure reviews or blogrolling. Aaron 02:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. If the tag had been placed in the proper manner (including a link to discussion explaining why the editor sought to delete the article), it would not have been removed. The above profanity in reference to the present editor is objected to strenuously. Badagnani 02:32, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am not sure what a "ghit" is, but the film draws 341,000 hits. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%229%2F11+press+for+truth%22 There's quite a difference and I believe 341,000 proves notability. Whether you believe the film to be "cruft" or not, it is wrong to remove all mention of it from Wikipedia, for whatever stated or unstated reason. We are here to serve our users. If you view the film and object to its contents for factual reasons, that could be treated in the article or "discussion" page. But simply attempting to delete articles other editors begin for such reasons (especially flawed reasoning such as the wildly inaccurate claim there are only 344 hits) is just wrong, and against what we stand for here. Badagnani 02:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Weakest Keep I have ever seen. Badagnani, a Ghit is google hits and it only has 344 unique hits off of google. Please don't speak for other Wikipedia authors or make statements as an authority on 'what wikipedia stands for'. After we remove blogs, forums, wikipedia, and journals it only shows 284 unique hits[2]. Only reason I say keep is because of the NYT article. If that wasn't around, I would say to nuke the article without pity. --Brian (How am I doing?) 05:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: unique Google hits are only counted on the first 1,000 Google hits, so 344 unique Google hits does not mean that there are only 344 different sites mentioning this. Wikipedia has 416,000,000 Google hits (!), but only 384 unique Google hits[3]. Let's delete Wikipedia? I have no opinion on this article, but deletion because of the low number of Unique Google Hits is in this case a bad idea. Fram 09:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. The movie is included in the Rotten Tomatoes, Amazon, Moviefone and New York Times movie databases. It has also been reviewed by some notable media sources such as Slant Magazine [4], and The Hub Weekly [5] as well as mentioned in articles in the Scoop [6] and the New York Times [7] (note that the New York Times article requires subscribing).--TBCTaLk?!? 03:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - per TBC. And you have to give the article credit - at least it doesn't prattle on and on about every minor detail (a common technique used to misdirect attention from the unimportance of the subject). My Alt Account 03:50, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Completely non-notable conspiracy cruft film. Morton devonshire 04:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per TBC. Note also that it's #1,224 on Amazon's DVD rank. (For comparison purposes, Criteron Collection's M is #3,814, Rikki Tikki Tavi/Yankee Doodle Cricket is #1,389 and Bakshi's The Lord of the Rings is #18,969, all of which are clearly notable.) That, and especially the New York Times mention, make it a minor but notable film.--Prosfilaes 04:57, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - there's a load of rubbish placed on WP by advocates of the "9/11 Truth Marketing Opportunity" - sorry, "Truth Movement" - but this doesn't appear to be it. Notability guidelines seem satisfied. Vizjim 06:09, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no need to advertise for Jersey girls seeking wealth.--Tbeatty 07:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per TBC, especially based on the New York Times article. - Mgm|(talk) 10:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete More conspiracy cruft. Barely any coverage by reliable sources. --Peephole 12:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. If it was expanded, it could turn into a resonable article. +Fin-
  • Keep - A useful stub of what might be a better article concerning a reasonably notable film. This deletion request seems driven by political rather than academic motives, and hence should be scrutinized carefully. I don't agree with the film's conclusions, but I wanted to know more about it, particularly as related to other 9/11 conspiracy theory propoganda. Or am I suspicious for even asking about 9/11 conspiracy theorists? --Nemonoman 16:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment no opinion, but I added an Importance tag to the article because the article makes no case why this film has any relevence, notability, or importance. TBC basically did all the legwork already so interested parties just need to include the sources he's provided in the article (and go ahead and boldly remove the tag after the sources have been included).--Isotope23 16:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, absolutely One of the best 9/11 movies I have ever seen. Furthermore, this is a new movie. If this were to disappear into the fog of time then I could see some argument for deleting it, but why throw out the baby with the bathwater? This movie features the Jersey girls who were on the family steering committee for the 9/11 Commission. The movie documents their story. It also has interviews with Paul Thomson, one of the premier Researchers questioning the official account of 9/11. It is based entirely on excerpted press stories so is based firmly in fact. Facts, I recall, are what wikipedia is about, not delete trolling, which I see a lot of around here. Kaimiddleton 16:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per New York Times. Gamaliel 19:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete After reviewing the sources, I have found that the article does NOT pass notability requirements. The NYT mention is NOT an article that focuses on, and only on the movie (which is required. The article must be a full-length featured article about the subject only). It is only a mentioned as a small part of related 9/11 events happening on or around 9/11/06. Rotten Tomatoes is not used as a 'reliable source'. Amazon is used to verify the movie was made though, as is the AOL movies listing but neither provide a reason the movie is notable. Slant Magazine and Hub Weekly are not a print magazines but rather are blogs...which removes them as a reliable sources (blogs are not normally allowed, per wikipedia policy). Scoop is not a reputable website (and this is just a press release), and hence is also voided as a reliable source. Nothing notable about this and does not have multiple, independent, third-party, reliable, full-length featured articles about the film.
On a side note, I want to shake a finger at all the keeps that have not done any research into this beyond looking at the AFD and voting per what ever was said. I was guilty of this until I actually looked up the articles and found user, Tree Biting Conspiracy, lying about the sources. AfD is about researching the topic and basing your own keep/delete on your own research. --Brian (How am I doing?) 19:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Lying about sources? First of all, false accusations are not civil, and are a violation of WP:CIV. As for the New York Times article, I did not state that the article entirely focused on the movie, I only stated that it mentioned the movie. Having a profile on Rotten Tomatoes, AOL Movies, or Amazon does make a movie more notable than if it was some sort of home movie made by a couple of teenagers after school. Also, Slant Magazine and Hub Weekly, are considered review websites, and not blogs. Next time, I suggest that you please do not accuse other users of lying before carefully reading their comments.--TBCTaLk?!? 20:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Also, don't blame me if other users don't bother to actually research the topic and simply use "per nom" as an explanation for deletion (which is personally a pet peeve for me too). Though it's true I didn't lie , I'm also not perfect (no one is) so I'm still vulnerable to make mistakes. Either way, be sure to be a bit civil next time before making allegations such as those above. :) --TBCTaLk?!? 20:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I agree with TBC; this comment is rather uncivil. You provided no evidence that TBC was lying about anything, and your differing analysis of his sources was a difference in opinion, and should have been stated like that.--Prosfilaes 04:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: as of 14 September 2006: Amazon.com Sales Rank: #765 in DVD.[9] Yet more evidence of notability, and yet more reason why there really isn't any reason to "hide" information from our users. Badagnani 20:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Sales figures are transitory. When the numbers collapse in a few weeks, as all DVD sales figures eventually do, will you then nominate this article for deletion yourself? --Aaron 20:46, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Everything is transitory. Sic transit gloria mundi. But current figures show that it is currently popular, which means it will have some interest in history. As you say, all DVD sales figures eventually drop; should we use that to remove all popular movies?--Prosfilaes 04:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: that is why it is called a "stub." There are a lot of such articles throughout Wikipedia, and we don't delete them all for the reason that they are short. A blow-by-blow description of the film's contents, how it was made, etc. can of course be added but that takes time, with the contribution of various editors (which could include you). But it seems that, at least so far, your edits consist solely of attempting to remove articles written by other editors, and not to create any new ones of your own. Badagnani 21:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: when you say "more notable than," were you perhaps referring to Ludicolo, Laughing Man (Ghost in the Shell), or Vala Mal Doran? They are all treated with loving concern for detail, yet deal with fantastical subjects. If those articles have a right to exist here, so that our users may learn from them (as I believe they do), why not also an article about a widely released new film examining one of the most important events of the past few years, and featuring as its main characters the widows of men lost in that event? Is fantasy more significant than fiction, or is it simply a question of whether consumers bought more of one and fewer of another? As with some other editors here, I believe the "selective deletionist" agenda is more insidious and aggressive. Let's try to respect one another's contributions here. Badagnani 23:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, I never heard of those articles or topics, but I agree with you (clearly). I had in mind topics far less notable than this one that add little to Wikipedia like Every time you kill a kitten... God masturbates.--csloat 01:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/9/11:_Press_for_Truth&oldid=75832081"