Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/911 In Plane Site

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 keep. Mailer Diablo 01:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 911 In Plane Site

Not encyclopedic. It has an IMDB entry which amusingly notes "If you like this title, we also recommend Watch the Skies!: Science Fiction, the 1950s and Us" however nothing on Amazon. Lots of google hits but nothing to indicate that was even the smallest blip on the radar outside the S11 conspiracy circles. The villagevoice mentions it in passing in one article along with a list of others, but that appears to be as good as it gets for reliable secondary source. When taking into consideration the paucity of material available, the source of IMDB's information being unvetted, the low cost of productian and distribution of a DVD, and the fact that this appears to be mostly distributed via torrent anyway, I recommend deletion. brenneman^{L} 23:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep A notable documentary, just not a good article. Read the comments on IMDB, it's no farce MadCow257 01:07, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep Clearly notable. Google returns 69,400 hits, and each hit seems to generally be about this documentary. --Hyperbole 01:22, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above; notable documentary --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 02:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Seems notable enough. Plenty of nutjobs concerned citizens are into this sort of thing. dbtfz^talk 02:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Barring the throw-away line in the village voice, do we have a single mention in anything that would be considered a Wikipedia:Reliable source? Can we find evidence that this has been reviewed in a reputable industry magazine, that it's thesis has been given serious consideration by major media, that this film ignited controversy that was reported in a trustworthy online source? Because I'm not seeing anything like that. Google hits demonstrate that it exists and that it's been blogged, but that's not the hurdle for inclusion. - brenneman^{L} 02:57, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep As long as the article focuses on the film and doesn't present the info inside as accurate, it doesn't matter whether the ideas in the film have been given consideration by the media, or even if they are correct. The film exists and has a sizable following and thus should have a wikipedia article about it. Shadowoftime 03:06, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Hmm, tough one... (bias disclosure, Aaron Brenneman asked me to pop in here... but I am inclusionist) I think it's verifiable this video exists, that within the conspiracy community it has wide notice, that there are a lot of other sites that link to the site promoting the movie (which has an Alexa of about 140K... not high enough for notability on its own). But I'm not seeing major notability. All you keepers, take me through it again? The whole thing almost smackes of a Walled garden. Not available on Amazon, and the IMDB entry is weak. Very marginal notability. Still, the article is well written, as these things go. If this had any cites from mainstream sources (small town theorist run papers in Idaho need not apply) you can be sure the website would be trumpeting them, so that's evidence of non notability right there. Is there somewhere this could be merged to? Maybe an article on fringe movies that also included 9-11: The Road to Tyranny and 9/11 Guilt: The Proof is in Your Hands ??? I'm sorry, much as I want to say keep, I have to go with delete. The notability just isn't there for me. ++Lar: t/c 03:35, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Clarification: It is listed on Amazon [1], just not available. Changing my opinion to very weak keep in light of good, but not fully convincing, points made above. dbtfz^talk 03:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks for that, I think I was looking incorrectly. That takes me to weak delete from delete because, well, because 25000 DVDs ahead of it in sales ranking means... not very notable. ++Lar: t/c 06:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
      • That's what "they" want you to think. The appearance of non-notability is all part of the conspiracy.  ;-) dbtfz^talk 07:06, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
        • Let me get my tinfoil... There, hat's on. OK, more seriously, I read the whole Village Voice piece, and followed some of the links from there. This is the wrong article. The real story here, I think, is about Dave vonKleist, not about this one video (the voice said it sold 50,000 copies, if true, that's probably marginally notable, but I'm thinking maybe this guy is more notable)... If my earlier suggestion about merging all the videos into one article about them all doesn't fly, perhaps someone should take this article and move it to Dave vonKleist, changing the focus from the video to the man. Sources for that might be much more plentiful. Leave a redirect from the current title to there... ++Lar: t/c 07:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
          • I certainly wouldn't object to that, if anyone wants to do it. dbtfz^talk 07:49, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep, seems notable. JIP | Talk 07:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• Re "walled garden" argument (above), the "walls" of the article will fall substantially once it gets "Wiki-fied" if that's the word for adding blune-links in to an article -- 62.25.109.196 08:33, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I think I wasn't clear. I mean that the entire 9/11 conspiracy theory web of sites out in the wider internet has some walled garden aspects. They refer to each other a lot more than anyone else refers to them at all. ++Lar: t/c 12:49, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per all. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 09:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep exactly per Shadowoftime. feydey 12:25, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, looks notable. --Terence Ong 13:47, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, but edit. Certainly notable enough, but parts are in a very unencyclopedic style. I'll make some edits myself to see if we can't get it better. --Deville (Talk) 14:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

  Comment I changed it a bit and made it somewhat better. It still needs some work, though. --Deville (Talk) 14:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. IMDB is the cinematic industry standard web resource; Their opinion as to what is notable or not is superior to ours. RGTraynor 14:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Not superior, just different. Significantly broader, in fact. So having an IMDB entry is (based on past outcomes of AfD discussions) NOT sufficient, in my view of what accepted practice here is, to establish notability by itself. ++Lar: t/c 15:15, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as notable document of notably nutty conspiracy theory. ProhibitOnions 00:20, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

  I'd ask what people are basing the opinon that it's notable on? If a reason that an editor thinks that something is notable is explained, then we can talk about it, work it over, etc. But since this is a discussion and not a vote it's a real problem if recomendations aren't explained. They lack falsifiability for one thing. This is how I see it so far:

  • Google hits alone: Hyperbole, TBC
  • IMDB alone: RGTraynor, MadCow257
  • No clear reason given: ProhibitOnions, Deville, JIP, Shadowoftime, feydey, Terence Ong
  • Per all: Siva1979

  I'm not trying to be agressive in listing the names above, just trying to sort out what everyone thinks.

  brenneman^{L} 01:11, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Aaron, I said keep simply because the film seemed to get a certain amount of press coverage here in Germany, and AFAIK in France and elsewhere; this might not be apparent from an Amazon(.com) search. The film's the usual fringe claptrap, but that plays well in some parts of the world, and I think it is notable only for the fact that it was mentioned on national TV shows. Can't remember which, though. ProhibitOnions 01:32, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

    • My reasons are: listed on Amazon, listed on IMDB, mentioned (albeit in passing) in the Village Voice, tons of relevant (if flaky) Google hits. None of those are alone sufficient, but together they make for a reasonable (though admittedly not overwhelming) claim to notability. dbtfz^talk 01:48, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep it's available also on Google Video for free, and theres a trailer for it on the NOFX enhanced CD 'War on Errorism'. -M^ask 00:53, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable enough. And just as Google and IMDb are not 100% accurate in terms of notability neither is Amazon. My DVD collection has several films that are not listed by Amazon. 23skidoo 04:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per others. Arbusto 06:45, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep not per nom. I also object to the vote tally that has been placed within this discussion that is designed to intimidate participants, despite the clear consensus. If it remains, suggest adding: Reasons for deletion: none. -- JJay 14:01, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Sorry, what vote tally? Do you mean Aaron's analysis of the reasons people are giving for keeps? That's not really a tally, is it? If it is what you mean, I find it useful rather than objectionable... you may not agree of course. ++Lar: t/c 14:22, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't find it objectionable either. But I still say "very weak keep." dbtfz^talk 16:23, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Since User:Brenneman is so full of good ideas, maybe we should all provide running "analysis"- i.e. distorted summaries of user opinions shaped to our POVs. Merely in the interest of facilitating discussion of course... -- JJay 16:37, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
      • I asked for clarification of arguments. For example, I'd left dbtfz's name off of the list because xe had made clear that they'd looked at the evidence and come to a conclusion. If we don't know why someone has recomended a course of action, we can't properly evaluate it. - brenneman^{L} 01:54, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
        • Yeah, whatever. Not that there is anything really to evaluate since you made the case for keeping the article with the facts in your nom. However, while we are properly evaluating things, perhaps we can start with the only truly unabashed voice for delete on this page, i.e. Bov down below, who at least deserves a prize for honesty. -- JJay 02:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I will admit right off the bat that I'm voting delete because I think this film promotes blatant disinformation - pods, missiles, flashes, no planes. It is offensive to the families of the victims who died at the sites by suggesting that fake planes or missiles were used instead of the actual flights themselves. Is it notable? Sure, like a virus all over the internet. Bov 19:11, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  • With all due respect, that's not a good reason to delete. An encyclopedia article about the film need not inherit the bad characteristics of the film itself. Most would agree that Mein Kampf was offensive and promoted disinformation; it does not follow that the article about it should be deleted. Notability alone is sufficient for inclusion. dbtfz^talk 19:32, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  • What an apt comparison. Actually I never said it was a good reason to delete, only that that's why I'm voting that way. Others can do what they choose. Bov 19:57, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Bov, if a vote for deletetion does not cite a current Criteria for Deletion, it is invalid and does not count toward the final tally. See WP:DP for the criteria list. -M^ask 21:11, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Actually, the tally is already settled on here, so it doesn't matter. But it'll be great to have a neutral page on it to cite the many false assertions in the content. Bov 02:12, 27 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.