Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/9-11: The Road to Tyranny

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. Rx StrangeLove 05:40, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 9-11: The Road to Tyranny

Merge and Redirect to Alex Jones (journalist) non-notable stub; any info should be merged back into Alex Jones (journalist). Page was created to prop up user Striver's push for a POV tag on September 11, 2001 attacks Mmx1 03:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

• Merge and delete per nom. --Aaron 03:42, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Merge Though there is not much information to merge. Bobby1011 04:02, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Week Keep Tons of Ghits. [1]. Also, it has an entry on IMDB. Can't find any info on sales numbers, but it seems like there is a lot of controversy about it. I perhaps disagree with the reasoning, but it looks legit. ---J.Smith 05:00, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying it's not legit, but there's hardly any information for it to stand on its own. Every other Alex Jones movie has a two-sentence blurb on the Alex Jones page. Don't see why this is any different. --Mmx1 05:48, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep and improve per J. Smith. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 05:14, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep It should be allowed to grow --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 06:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete if there is no information about the subject of the article and it's a recent event, it's clearly not notable to warrant an article in the first place. Dbchip 07:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Real movie. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 09:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Merge I'd love to see enough information on the movie to qualify for its own article, but until then... --Talain 11:09, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Real movie, notable creator, made lots of controversies, great many hits... If this is going, what does it need to keep a movie stub? Or is it that we dont allow movie stubs? Or maybe, we should delete the { {movie-stub}} template? Could you please tell me how this is not a legit movie stub? --Striver 11:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not IMDB. Stub is never meant to be a permanent status. In this case, it's far more useful to have it point to Alex Jones and give it the context of a series from that documentary maker than have an essentially empty stub. As the sparse IMDB site indicates, there's very little promise for the article on its own. As it stands it's just pushing the agenda of the film. --Mmx1 14:45, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

So, based on the account of the article being created yesterday, and still being a stub, you argue it will NEVER be anyting more than a stub, and should be delete. Have i understood you correctly? --Striver 15:27, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

There's no media coverage of this film whatsoever, no Ghits other than people pushing the film, no critical third-party discussion of it or its contents, and short of transcribing the film (and using WP as Alex Jones' soapbox), what would go in this article? Clarifying nomination to Merge and Redirect to Alex Jones. I'm not saying this movie shouldn't exist on WP, but it doesn't have enough encyclopedic content for any more than a stub. Better as redirect to Alex Jones. If someone wants to work on it I can see an argument for spinning off Documentaries of Alex Jones from that page. --Mmx1 16:40, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per Striver. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 16:24, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment, I've added a cleanup tag, because as it stands this is not an article (it's a timeline of a film), it's not sourced, it's not NPOV. No opinion right now since this article was just started, but I'm going to revisit this article in 30 days or so (assuming it is still there based on the current opinions here) and if it has not become an actual article, I'm going to AfD it.--Isotope23 16:52, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Updated

The article is no longer a stub. All delete votes on account of it being a stub are now redered void. --Striver 15:47, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I contend that you can't simply declare votes invalid. If I were you, I'd notify those people and give them a chance to change there votes. ---J.Smith 23:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

They're not votes. They're users expressing their opinions. Wikipedia is not a democracy. Bobby1011 02:15, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Nice attempt at filling out content with multiple 1-sentence sections but if you strip the section headers it's still a stub (and unencyclopedic). Or do you plan to transcribe the movie for us? --Mmx1 16:43, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

If things get so ridiculous that i need to transcript the whole damn movie, ill do it. This is totaly incredible... --Striver 18:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. This article should defitiely be kept per norm. On the other hand, the article is still a stub (as per the formal definition WP:Stub). Cdcon 18:48, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I honestly belive that the reasons to delete this article right now, after 24 houres of creation, is nothing more than ridiculous. People, at least be honest, write: "Delet: No conpiracy movies on WP". --Striver 19:02, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you missed my point. Other than regurgitating the content of the film (which, beyond a brief synopsis, is beyond the scope of WP), what other encyclopedic content could be included?

I'm not saying delete Alex Jones. I'm not saying we shouldn't talk about his documentaries. But you created this page specifically to cite a particular quote from the documentary. I do not see in anyway how this page adds to the body of encyclopedic information beyond what already exists on Alex Jones. This movie was already on WP prior to the creation of this article, and would have been much better served with a redirect to Alex Jones (journalist) than the POV-pushing content that currently exists.--Mmx1 19:09, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, ok. Ill see if i can ablige. Thanks for clearing that out.--Striver 19:46, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Better? --Striver 21:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Source for "The movie became very popular in short time"? "Critica dissmis the film as hysterical and non-factual." I can't even find people debunking this they way they do "Farenheit 911" (and people claim that the two contain similar material). That's how little attention it's gotten. --Mmx1 21:37, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Nutty, but notable. Engrish is bat.Morton devonshire 21:32, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. This article has not been improved at all by recent edits. I do not know what WTS 01 and NWO are supposed to stand for, and this article presumes that I do. Likewise, the "Burning of Rom" means nothing to me. Rome? Or are we talking about ROMs? This is not encyclopedic, it is a list of things that happen in a possibly nonnotable film, and even if it were to receive the huge amount of cleanup that it demands, I seriously doubt whether the result could ever be appropriate here. I can't imagine this being useful in an encyclopedia. When people want movie reviews, they go to IMDB. And I really don't like the idea of establishing a precedent for people creating outlines of movies. ergot 23:03, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I fixed everything you demanded, and also, take a look at this: Lists of films. --Striver 00:54, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• What I guess that it would really need to be encyclopedic would be reactions to the film from both supporters and detractors of Jones. Also, the archive.org batting average is a pretty good indication of notability, but I wouldn't mind seeing further evidence (comments on it by noted academics would go a long way). You have definately improved it, however. ergot 15:53, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• So why didnt you just add a request for expansion, instead for a delete vote? This article was created for 2-3 days ago, you cant expect a perfect article within 3 days, or vote to delete it. --Striver 16:27, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• Because I don't expect you to be able to find what I'm asking for, in which case I don't think that it would be properly notable. Prove me wrong and I'll change my vote. Also, as I said above, the possibility of setting a precedent for movie plot outlines being kept makes me uncomfortable. ergot 18:44, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Needs cleaning up but is notable. (Arundhati Bakshi (talk • contribs)) 00:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Wikipedia should be about collecting information, not throwing it away. We should aim to build the most comprehensive encyclopedia possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cabalamat (talk • contribs)
• Delete per Mmx1. Sandstein 01:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Unfortunately, people do listen to Alex Jones. Rhobite 01:44, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete for having little or no info, and more or less a duplicate of what is found under Alex Jones. Merge whatever is possible, then replace with redirect. Bjelleklang - talk 02:11, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unencyclopedic, nn--MONGO 13:27, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, Alex Jones' first movie. Kappa 14:10, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Unfortunately the truth is that Alex Jones is well-known within the 9/11 'truth' movement and this movie is very well known within that movement. Merge and Redirect to Alex Jones (journalist) I understand the anger at Striver's rampant vandalism and heavily POV edits on Wikipedia, but we can't let that be the reason we delete articles. Lastly, I think there is enough people in these afd threads that think it's time that we close the door on Striver's editing on Wikipedia. The User has exhausted the community's patience.--Jersey Devil 19:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Could you explain one thing for? I ask this in good faith: I have heard lots of people say i do "POV edits". I dont understand what they mean. Could somebody give me some practical examples of me doing "pov edits"? As is now, i feel "Striver does pov edits" have become a rally cry, devoided of factual truth. As i see it. Maybe it could help comunication if somebody cared to show me.--Striver 19:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• keep: Significant project of very noteworthy individual. Again, this sort of AfD seems to serve no other purpose, aside from being a distraction, than to dismantle articles that do not conform with the nominator's pov. Ombudsman 21:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

When the article was AFD'd it consisted of nothing more than a quote from the movie for the specific purpose of citing for a discussion on Talk:September_11,_2001_attacks. Striver has since attempted to improve the article to encyclopedic standards but has only a movie outline and metadata (user comments) from archive.org. There's sources for this article other than the movie itself. I'm not asking to dismantle it, I'm saying that properly belongs on Alex Jones (journalist) until there's enough content for it to stand on its own. I'm holding off on editing the article to give Striver a good faith attempt to create an encyclopedic entry, but if you reduced this article by WP:V, you'd be left with nothing more than already exists on [[Alex Jones (journalist). Ask yourself, would the article be better served as a 2-sentence stub or as a redirect Alex Jones (journalist)? --Mmx1 23:39, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

How about giving a article more than 24 houres before deciding its worthless and need to be AFD'd? --Striver 00:17, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

• keep Noteworthy individual and article. Bogus deletion attempt for reasons cited above. SkeenaR 23:05, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment. I don't understand why this is a "bogus deletion attempt". I had to think for a while before deciding keep. Please be civil to your fellow Wikipedians. Isopropyl 02:49, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment. I'm sorry if you took it that way. Without actually looking up the definition of "bogus", I basically take it to mean "not valid". And judging by the the results of voting on this recent rash of deletion attempts, it doesn't seem that they are valid. SkeenaR 05:28, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - Article needs work, but the movie is notable as one of the more widely known 9/11 conspiracy documentaries. Georgewilliamherbert 21:03, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  • if it's so widely known, how come we can't find any citations other than metadata on archive.com? --Mmx1 22:03, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and Rewrite. Appears to be a notable enough film. I would like to see it rewritten; copyeditting appears to be absent, and I think the "content" section could stand be merged into the "summary" section. Isopropyl 01:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC) Merge/Redirect. Initial vote was based on article being rewritten at some point; author seems to be against POV removal, reverting edits which change his wording. Probably better for everyone if this gets redirected. Isopropyl 05:43, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Smerge and redirect to Alex Jones (journalist) per nom. If it grows there, it could be recreated. I'd be OK with keep and cleanup too; better to have a short stub than a long but very sketchy outline. I do think Striver is going overboard creating these, but they do concern one of "the most significant events to have occurred so far in the 21st century", so it's understandable that more articles on the topic will be added to the good many that exist already. Imagine if WP had existed at the time of the Kennedy and King assassinations? Schizombie 02:46, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete NN --rogerd 03:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment When looking at the article, apply WP:V. Anonymous comments on archive.com do not constitute a source.--Mmx1 15:33, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Notability is not sourced; needs to cite at least one source published by a reliable publisher. The film itself is a primary source for this article. "We may not use primary sources whose information has not been made available by a credible publication." See WP:RS. The web citations do not satisfy this guideline since "they have an agenda or conflict of interest, strong views, or other bias which may color their report". Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:52, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect per nom. If it ever gains enough notability or the article grows to where it needs it's own article, it can be moved out of the Alex Jones (journalist) article. – Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 18:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect per nom. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 00:55, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Alex Jones (journalist). The author of the article disallows any editing of what he calls "his view". I don't think there is a way to make this article into something that gives the reader a truthful non-biased account of the film. It is not worth eroding reliability for a film with such low notability. Weregerbil 05:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Condense and Merge with Alex Jones (journalist)#9-11: The Road to Tyranny. Also, there should be verification as to whether or not the movie has been accepted as a legitimate documentary. (It seems to be the source of a (rather silly) theory rather than documenting one.) Peter Grey 06:04, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. I'd say this film is a "documentary" the same way Weekly World News is "investigative journalism". This is what Alex Jones says at the beginning of the film:

Hello, I'm Alex Jones, a syndicated radio and television host based in Austin, Texas. And for many years I have been exposing the criminal activities of the global elite, also known as the New World Order. And this collection of power mad megalomaniacs has been using a successive string of terrorist events to usher in their corrupt world government. A world government where populations (their own documents show) will be herded into compact cities, will be issued national ID cards, and yes, even implantable microchips. But in this film we are first going to look at some historical examples of tyrants and governments and oligarchies alike using crises, in many cases terrorist events that they themselves perpetrate against their population ...

Sort of goes downhill from there. Documentary film is one that is intent to remain factual or non-fictional, does the intro give much chance of that...? :-) See for yourself, the film is freely and legally downloadable on the net.

Here are some more of Mr. Jones' regular antics (that link was mentioned in the "criticism" section of the article being AfD'd here until the entire criticism section was removed by you guess who.) Weregerbil 19:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete & Merge - I've reviewed the debate and thought hard about it. I think merging would be the best option. ---J.Smith 20:09, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and Merge - Even though I personally consider Alex Jones to be a kookbar of the first order, I would have no issue with this entry if it were rewritten from a neutral point of view (one which accurately represents both sides of the story). Since the original author has resisted such rewriting, however, the next best option is to merge the information with Alex Jones (journalist). Mary Read 09:40, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The article has some significance, the film is real, the information is so far as I can tell accurate. Google has 19,500 hits for the name. The movie's message may be unwelcome and its delivery may not be unbiased that can be mentioned in the article. The article definitely needs work, but can be kept. Cool3 20:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and Merge - per nom Prodego ^talk 19:18, 3 March 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.