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 - there wasn't a clearcut consensus or knock out blow as to the notability of the film, but there are concerns raised by the lack of third party sources avaiable for this film. Aside from that, one of the keep advocates may be a single purpose account and another is very well known for being an ultra-extreme inclusionist. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 04:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non notable conspiracy video. Previous afd's resulted in no concensus. --Peephole 14:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep Has reliable citations, public accessability, can be referenced beyond the publisher at multiple websites, and would be POV if deleted. If this was deleted, then why not delete the Fahrenheit 9/11 article while you're at it? It would simply be breaking the POV rule. And to say that it's an exception? Well, never make an exception. An exception disproves the rule. mikecucuk 17:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.189.164.210 (talk • contribs) .— Possible single purpose account: 198.189.164.21 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]
  • This is most definitely not an account that has been used for this single purpose. PizzaMargherita 05:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Less than 50 edits. "few" implies 50-100 edits per the sock rule. Plus it's over a huge timeframe and an IP. --Tbeatty 06:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Commment. I haven't voted either way (and will probably abstain from doing so), but I'd like to point out that just because the article covers a controversial matter and is being considered for deletion doesn't mean it's being considered for deletion because of its controversial subject. Nobody would deny that Fahrenheit 9/11 is notable, but the notability of this video is in obvious question. Jeff Silvers 14:47, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, non-notable. Fails WP:NOT. Morton devonshire 17:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, self-distributed. Gazpacho 17:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep, very notable, referenced. The usual POV-pushing nominations. Will this ever end? PizzaMargherita 19:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete see WP:NOT--IworkforNASA 19:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. The number of Google hits returned on this title have increased by more than 50% since the first nomination, to 31,800. IMDB, Google Video, and other feedback is consistently mounting, indicating that people are watching and responding to the film. I believe this film was notable from the inception of the article, and only continues to grow in notability. --Hyperbole 20:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete Totally inappropriate for an encyclopedia--RCT 20:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Oh, look, yet another 9/11 conspiracy theory AfD, and already I'm overwhelmed by the high quality of the discussion. Anyway, this one is quickly assessed: the article itself - and that's what counts, at least for me - has exactly zero external sources, let alone reliable sources, to back up this movie's spurious claim to notability, which seems to be "it's popular on P2P", which by itself is not at all terribly impressive in my book. Sandstein 20:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete self-published, Internet-distributed conspiracycruft. Danny Lilithborne 20:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Hyperbole claims that IMDB feedback is "mounting" yet only 225 people have voted on IMDB for this film (and I'm willing to bet that most of them haven't seen it). The film isn't available from Netlix, it isn't even available from amazon.com. Completely non-notable. GabrielF 01:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. per GabrielF. --Aude (talk contribs as tagcloud) 01:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Prior AFDs:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/9-11: The Road to Tyranny - first AFD, no consensus.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/9-11: The Road to Tyranny (2nd nomination) - second AFD, no consensus GRBerry 01:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Exactly, has the video become less notable in the meantime? Or are the noms relying on the fact that given enough nominations, the article will eventually be deleted? What a waste of time... PizzaMargherita 13:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. The article was barely being given the benefit of the doubt. No Consensus is hardly a vote of confidence. After two votes of no consensus with no improvement to the article or growth in the popularity, the consensus is now clearly Delete.--Tbeatty 02:31, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll rephrase. No consensus = Keep. This is not a vote, but a discussion. There was no consensus in the first two nominations, and I can't see any changes in circumstances that might have changed the validity of arguments either way. For the same reasons I also disagree that "the consensus is now clearly delete". PizzaMargherita 16:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, film by notable film-maker. Kappa 06:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Ah...yes, Striver-cruft.--MONGO 09:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You call yourself an admin? WP:NPA. PizzaMargherita 13:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom—(Kepin)^{RING THE LIBERTY BELL} 12:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Sandstein's fine argument. Vizjim 13:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Film by notable film maker, very prominent in the 911TM movement.--Striver 14:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Mmx1 15:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Topic may deserve a one-liner in "conspiracy theories of 9/11" Pseudotumor 17:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete--ChaplineRVine^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 17:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete cruft factory, see also WP:NOT for why this shouldn't be on wikipedia--I-2-d2 17:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Danny L. and Sandstein. Reviews ? None cited. Press reporting. Not that either. On the other hand ... nope, there is no other hand. Wikipedia is not Striver's "911TM movement" (sic) soap box. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. The movie is out there, it exists and it helps the whole democratic fabric by adding a point of view. Deletion would amount to silencing a valid voice out there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.235.90.208 (talk • contribs)

Accounts first edit GabrielF 01:54, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no media references. Andjam 17:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per MONGO and Pizza --Tbeatty 17:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is this supposed to be provocative? PizzaMargherita 21:10, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not at all. There is nothing provocative about any of these cruft articles. Just a giant waste of time and effort both to create them and then clean up after them. Bring your shovel, hand sanitizers and breathing filters for the smell. --Tbeatty 02:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your wit is irresistible, but I was referring to the reason you gave for deletion. PizzaMargherita 16:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I wonder if the "popularity" of this film has been increased by us having an in-depth page on it. While Jones is a notable crank, this doesn't look like it's a notable crank film (yet).--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete Per MONGO and nom. This is Not notable Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 22:18, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• There are literally no references here - just IMDB and Google Video. It makes all kinds of claims - that its popular and downloaded a lot from P2P networks, but none are backed up! RN 01:30, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep I don't know that much about the man or his movies, but as a general Wikipedian who is opposed to exclusionary tactics I say keep only on general principle. If it isn't outright self-promotion I'm against deleting. Still, I'll defer to someone who knows more about this topic if push comes to shove.--Saintlink 03:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. While I am not convinced of the validity of the content of the video, I do think it is notable. The creator of it is a prolific purveyor of conspiracy theory and this is another example of it.Mallanox 04:11, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - pure cruft, absolutely NN film. I don't think this encyclopedia is well-served by the practice of creating absurdly long, detailed articles about every single thing Alex Jones touches. Will gladly support an article that passes the usual thresholds. My Alt Account 02:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Well known commercially published work.--Pussy Galore 02:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC) Indefinitely banned user for trolling[reply]

• Strong Keep Notable film-maker, film is notable, google hits, imdb profile.--Coasttocoast 04:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Ghit count is in fact of 366 unique hits. The credibility of Wikipedia is not well-served by multiple articles which in effect are a way for conspiracy theorists to assert their credibility. I think one should apply the notion of due weight here. This is a marginal film supported by a marginal but vocal group which does have enough presence on the web to make it seem as though they have a significant following. Maybe all of this cruft should simply be redirected to 9/11 conspiracy theories. This is a film with no credibility outside the very restricted circle of a paranoid few. Pascal.Tesson 07:17, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Hyperbole's comments. Arbusto 17:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Pascal.Tesson's comments. Wasn't going to vote originally, but now that I've thought about it, this really does seem like a small group of individuals who just happen to be loud enough to seem like a lot of people. And before anybody makes suggestions that political agendas are the only reasoning behind deleting this article, I'd like to say I'd have no problem with keeping it if it actually seemed notable. Jeff Silvers 21:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Hey, nobody's going to accuse you of deleting with an agenda - you just voted keep! My Alt Account 21:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Heh, whoops. Fixed. :) Jeff Silvers 21:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Crockspot 05:45, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Sandstein --Geneb1955^Talk/_CVU 15:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Indrian 15:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as there are no reliable sources used to verify the importance or notability of this film, despite two prior AFDs and five days of discussion here. I have to believe that if they existed, we'd have them. The only reliable source referenced in the article is the creator's website. Without indpendent reliable sources, we can't write an article adhering to the policies WP:NPOV and WP:V. GRBerry 21:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOT. --Aaron 23:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep per Mallanox and IMDB entry --Anthony5429 04:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Others on this page have made worthwile comments about keeping this movie. As I've written before, if 9/11 is an important event for modern life, and 100 million people want to investigate it more, then a fairly major movie challenging the official 9/11 story is notable. Wikipedia has a plethora of articles about minor films, I even found an entry for My Life as a Dog. Ever heard of that one? Kaimiddleton 21:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, the example you cited was nominated for two academy awards and is part of the Criterion Collection. GabrielF 21:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And furthermore note that by this logic we would have to have every little minor film abou the JFK assassination, the Columbia disaster, why the US really invaded Iraq, why John Hinkley really shot Ronald Reagan and just to cover systemic bias, who really made the pyramids and how the government of East Bumblefuckstan is really controlled by real small furry creatures from Alpha Centauri. JoshuaZ 23:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crap, is it? I'm going to East Bumblefuckstan next week! Vizjim 12:22, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Hyperbole on the numbers, at the least. Locewtus 21:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per GRBerry. No reliable sources after this long is a really bad sign. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per PizzaMargherita and GRBerry. JoshuaZ 23:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep... 9/11 video by noted conspiracy theorist; part of a series on Alex Jones's works. Calwatch 04:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Yeah, see that's the sort of remark that makes so many users concerned. JoshuaZ 05:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Notable film by a notable film maker. T REX_speak 04:57, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Newsbank has ten articles on "Road to Tyranny" "Alex Jones". Two are about a professor including the movie in his syllabus and the ensuing controversy, two are letters to the editor, and the others are brief mentions or film listings. Can't check Lexis-Nexis yet. Calwatch 07:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also a mention in the New York Post Page Six, entire text follows: MICHAEL Moore's anti-Bush film "Fahrenheit 9/11" isn't even original. Two years ago, "9/11: The Road to Tyranny," a real documentary by Alex Jones, had most of the "facts" Moore uses in his scatter-shot diatribe. Jones, who is less interested in making money than the self-aggrandizing Moore, released his film for free on his Web site www.infowars.com, where it drew legions of new fans, including producer Curt Johnson, who is hiring Jones as a consultant on a political action thriller titled "Wake Up." "road to tyranny" has 153 hits, although the majority are not Jones related. Calwatch 07:04, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That's nothing more than a trivial, passing mention. --Peephole 13:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete Totally inappropriate for an encyclopedia Brimba 16:04, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why inappropriate? PizzaMargherita 16:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable film. As a second option, merge into Jones, and split off "films of Alex Jones", if someone feels his films are notable as a whole. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:28, 14 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.