Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/911: In Plane Site (second 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 was Keep (No consensus). --- Glen 07:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 911: In Plane Site

ATTENTION! If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether a page or group of pages is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing! Note: Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username|UTC timestamp [optional]}}

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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia:Consensus can changeMorton Devonshire^Yo
    • 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)

• Strong Keep: Regarding notability and reliable sources, the video has been broadcast on Australian television, and a big stink was raised [1]. The video is reviewed on Amazon. The producer of the video has been interviewed on CNN [2]. While you might dislike the article, it clearly passes notability tests, is in no way original Wikipedia 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)

• 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^Talk/_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)
• Delete', non-notable, released in 2004 and yet it has less than 300 votes on IMDB. I browsed through the first 15 pages of google hits and saw nothing that would speak to notability, sorry a two-day controversy in Australia doesn't cut it. GabrielF 00:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Per nom, except that I feel that the violations of WP:RS and WP:NOR can be fixed. --Wildnox 00:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete not-notable enough by my standards, sorry. —Khoikhoi 03:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, appears to have the necessary media attention. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:54, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Regarding the three counter-arguments:

1. The Danby comment isn't the notable part. The broadcast of the movie on one of Australia's three major broadcast networks is.
2. The fact that it is sold on Amazon doesn't seem to be a counterpoint.
3. Not that it's a particularly respected show, but it is a nationally syndicated one: Coast to Coast AM has also had at least one discussion on the movie.

On another note, whether the movie is a hoax or potential disinformation is not relevant. Personally I think it's garbage, but that doesn't make it any less relevant.

Finally, as Edison stated, AfD should not be a "Pitch til you win " kiddie carnival game. It was nominated before and the result was keep. Yes, consensus can change, but this was just voted on six months ago. Seems there should be a bit more time between repeated AfD's. Sparkhead 11:11, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Please address Wikipedia policy, rather than your personal opinions. See WP:CCC.Morton devonshire 18:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

• From WP:CCC: If you think a consensual decision is outdated, you should ask around a bit (e.g. at the Village Pump) to see if people agree with you. You cannot declare a new consensus all by yourself. I don't see any discussion in this article's talk page about deletion, nor anything at WP:PUMP. I see no link in your nomination about you "asking around". Care to provide a link to some discussion you had before the AfD? Sparkhead 18:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

That's what Afd's are for -- to determine consensus. Morton devonshire 19:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

21 September 2006 (UTC)

• There was an AfD, and a consensus was reached. The points raised in the first AfD still hold, and there are additional new reasons for keeping it mentioned above.

Some futher metadiscussion: You've clearly violated WP:CCC per above. It does reek of playing a "pitch til you win" game and this nomination, along with other non-policy-based deletion nominations you've put forth recently, border on disruptive behavior per WP:DEL#Renominations and recurring candidates, and WP:DEL#Abuse of deletion process, notably: XfD (deletion) processes are not a way to complain or remove material that is personally disliked, whose perspective is against ones beliefs, or which is not yet presented neutrally. I believe this AfD should be withdrawn for those reasons alone. Enjoy the rest of the discussion. Sparkhead 21:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

What the hell are you talking about? Since when is it a wikicrime to put something up for afd? And a majority of editors seems to agree with morton that this isn't an article worth keeping --Peephole 22:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

When it becomes disruptive. And most editors DO NOT agree with the nomination, I think I'd re-read the comments on this page before making an over-broad statement like that. Shortfuse 23:16, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Agree, it seems that only the US media isn't heavily covering this, but international media is. International opinion > US opinion, as this is en.wikipedia, rather than us.wikipedia (unfortunately, but it is what is is...). · XP · 00:30, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. International coverage. Possibly more importantly, nothing has changed since the last Keep consensus, which was broadly participated in. Please don't just keep asking for a revote until you get one you like. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Aude (talk contribs as tagcloud) 01:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Note as one of the article's biggest claims to notability is that it aired on Australian free-to-air tv, I'm listing it on the list of Australian-related deletions. Andjam 09:15, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and update Weakest possible keep If this were held a month ago, I would have voted delete. But being screened on free-to-air tv in Australia is a claim to notability. a google news search for Plane Site gets at least 3 separate hits from mainstream Australian news sources. Complaints about it being a second nomination are a bit much - there's always deletion review. Andjam 09:32, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• weak Keep marginal. but it's got over 600 google hits, an imdb listing, and a national showing in Australia. i don't see the harm, as it doesn't look like a promotional listing. if it's soon to be forgotten, then this will be just one more page no one looks at. no big deal. Derex 09:53, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It's got international coverage and 121,000 google hits. Its being described as "laughable" adds to its notability, albeit not its credibility, but the latter is not our concern. The article needs to include the National Nine News article, the CNN interview and "Fox News hatchet job". The nom fails to acknowledge this exposure, which not only invalidates the nom, but also the deletes which cite "per nom". We need to be presented with all the evidence, not selective evidence to argue a POV. Three deletes also subscribe to a strong predictive element, namely "soon to be forgotten". We do not delete on what we think is going to happen in the future, i.e. speculation, but on what the reality is now. If something is "soon to be forgotten", it is a testimony to current prominence, as it is stating that it has not yet been forgotten. The previous AfD was near-unanimous, so a second AfD should not have been made without more serious consideration than is evidenced here:[3][4] Tyrenius 13:24, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Having a Wikipedia article is a big part of any claim to notability. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Has a very decent article--I'm not saying that's relevant to notability, but's it's not like it's a small stub--and as shown by the ext. links has numerous reviews/comments. I'd also like to know how it fails NOT and NOR, and I certainly wouldn't call it vanity. — mæstro ^t/c, 16:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Mongo. -- I@n 18:18, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Details of international TV coverage were added here. · XP · 18:30, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Per CWC. --Mmx1 21:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete precisely as per nomination. Fails any rational test of encyclopaedic notability, and appears to be conspiracycruft (of which we have altogether too much already) Guy 21:50, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deletion of this article would be a violation of NPOV, given that the article fulfils that and other major policies, it would fulfil a movies notability standard, except for the fact that the factual content is in dispute here, per strong personal feelings about the topic from many users. Ansell 01:56, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep nonsense conspiracy documentary, but good article and the film and controversy seem notable enough to me. --Canley 05:13, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Sparkhead, Edison, Tyrenius, Maestrosync --Guinnog 06:30, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep Credible? Hardly. But being shown nation-wide on an Australia free-to-air television network is good enough to establish it's notability for me. Lankiveil 09:40, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The article documents an actual documentary and shows the criticism of it. It was aired on national TV, it's published. Maybe it's about time a team of experienced and impartial admins had a look at all this 9/11 crap and counter-crap and told those on each side of the alleged discussion to look at the criteria more closely and to interpret them properly. Bandwagon deletes and keeps do us no service here. Fiddle Faddle 09:56, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Doesn't fail Wikipedia:Notability (films) as it passes #1 with reviews in print and tv. How does it fail WP:VAIN or WP:NOT is not explained; I would have hoped, that the nominator explained the reasons for deletion and doesn't just write a bunch of WP shortcuts. What kind of deletion reason is "Conspiracy cruft video."? I hope that people discuss the deletion of the article by the WP inclusion/deletion guidelines, not by subject matter (even how ridiculous it might be). feydey 12:33, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep per TBC. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 16:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. It being presented on a national broadcast television channel normally would be an indication of notability, but, CWC makes good counterarguments. (The arguement that it's been too soon since the last AfD is completely wrong, and should be disregarded by the closing administrator.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment The broadcast counterargument is simply wrong. It's been broadcast more than once, and it was not broadcast directly against 'Path to 9/11'. Regarding other comments about the lack of validity of this AfD, you really should read what is written. The issue is not the timeframe of the second AfD. I don't believe the nominator is acting in good faith. The fact that the nom states "the video isn't available at Blockbuster", shows that he did some searching outside of Wikipedia to verify notability. At least one of the references provided were easily available in Google news, showing Mainstream media coverage of the video. This is why discussions before a renomination after a consensus was reached are important. Deliberately ignoring such procedures is a violation of procedures, and intentionally disruptive. The nominator in this case has done it multiple times, and in the vast majority of cases the AfD fails. Remember this isn't a vote. It's a presentation of the facts involved with the article. Sparkhead 17:45, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Please stick with policy arguments, and avoid ad hominem attacks. Morton devonshire 23:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• You might want to familiarize yourself with the content of the page you linked before throwing around "ad hominem attack" accusations. There's nothing ad hominem about my statements. If you feel otherwise, feel free to take it to the appropriate conflict resolution channels. Sparkhead 00:49, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

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.