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 no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 04:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

((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]

• Note: Above comment is by creator of article. --Aaron 17:04, 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]
  • Comment. The movie also seems to star the Jersey Girls and is, as Badagnani mentioned below, ranked #765 in Amazon.com sales. [8]--TBCTaLk?!? 20:39, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The snoop article is just a press release and the ny times just make a trivial, passing mention. The two movie reviews seem to come from non notable sites and being included in a database far from warrants inclusion on wikipedia--Peephole 13:00, 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]

• Delete per Aaron, Morton. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:55, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete very little information, not enough to justify keeping it. Dekar 21:07, 14 September 2006 (UTC)User's 10th extant edit, all but one to AfD. Tyrenius 21:16, 17 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]

• Delete Not notable and soon to be forgotten.--MONGO 21:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per l'argument de MONGO. Lou Sander 21:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep; seems more notable than many things on wikipedia, and appears to have been suggested for deletion for reasons of POV better discussed on the article than on an AfD page. Comments lumping together various films and books as part of "9/11 cruft" are particularly suspicious -- let's stick to issues of notability rather than making this yet another politicized AfD debate. Remember, don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point.--csloat 23:01, 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]

• Delete and redirect to Jersey girls. Nothing to see here. Move along. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:09, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you mean merge and redirect? Tyrenius 00:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I meant there's nothing to merge here, but a redirect to Jersey girls is plausible. I'd accept a straight redirect, but a merge seems to be unnecessary. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 03:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Minor to zero significance here. Layering.--Scribner 23:22, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Significant topic, mentioned in NY Times article, extremely high Amazon sales rank. Note some deletion votes appear to be disagreements with the politics rathern than the encyclopedic quality or notability. Crystal ball gazing and predicting that sales will decrease soon is not a valid basis for voting to delete.Edison 23:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this documentary isn't even listed on IMDB. Mention of this video in Jersey Girls suffices. --Aude (talk contribs as tagcloud) 02:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 03:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. Crockspot 04:56, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: as of 15 September 2006: Amazon.com Sales Rank: #655 in DVD.[10] Badagnani 06:44, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: In discussion about another 9/11-as-inside-job movie that was successfully ground down to zero by the deletion police, I mentioned the comparison to My Life as a Dog, a Swedish movie. Someone pointed out that it was nominated for two academy awards. But when I mentioned it to my Swedish relatives they thought it was rather insignificant or uninteresting. Don't get me wrong, I loved the movie myself. What's my point about all this? Here is a fictional movie, that came out long before wikipedia was around--indeed, the internet, as such, only had 5000 computers on it at the time. So documenting it is documenting a piece of film arcana. On the other hand, we have here under consideration a serious movie about a deadly serious subject having extensive interviews with people whose relatives died on 9/11 ... and we're having a discussion about deleting coverage of this topic. Have folks even seen what the Jersey Widows and other family members have to say? Go watch the movie and tell me it's not for real what these people feel and perceive. I think most of the people on this page are either arrogant or heartless. I'm beginning to feel like assuming good faith of these other editors is a sick joke. Kaimiddleton 08:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• You seem to be confusing your personal feelings with a method of deciding on verifiability and notability (possibly along the lines of the Chewbacca Defence?) Whether you and your Swedish great-uncle have heard of My Life as a Dog is utterly irrelevant - the movie has gained substantial coverage, been nominated for or awarded many prizes, launched the career of a major director, and is clearly significant (and pretty good, by the way). Equally, your strong feelings on viewing the movie "9/11: Press for Truth" are utterly irrelevant to the discussion at hand: the question is whether the movie in question has enough significant independent coverage to justify an encyclopedic article and allow one to be written. As far as I can see, this movie passes the low threshold required, so I've voted keep - this despite loathing conspiracy theories. Other disagree. Assume good faith, and display it. Vizjim 09:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I don't think the film represents a conspiracy theory. It sets out a timeline and focuses primarily on the government's failure to investigate promptly and fully as in previous disasters of a similar magnitude, and particularly on the failure to answer the questions developed and posed by family members to the 9/11 Commission, once that committee was finally organized, over the objections of the Bush administration. Probably a lot of the comments implying that the film is akin to some of the other 9/11 conspiracy films come from people who haven't seen it. A glance at the strongly political userboxes of the editor who put this page up for deletion suggests there may be other overarching motivations for his actions (whether conscious or subconscious) than lack of "notability" of this film. Badagnani 11:06, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete. Delete per nom and others; weak per TBC. CWC(talk) 09:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I've seen it. Its a real film. It is notable. Self-Described Seabhcán 09:38, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not notable; promotional Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:47, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Google returns 321,000 hits, the movie on dvd was included with one of Polish country-wide weekly magazines. It's a real documentary-type movie (not homemade CT movie). Yet, article needs expanding. --SalvNaut 17:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep per tree biting conspiracy. --heah 18:51, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notability is not the same as my liking it. I don't like it, but it's notable. GdB 19:41, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Notable film and agree with comments by Edison and Kaimiddleton. The fact that the Jersey girls are in it and speak their latest thoughts is central to the issue of 9/11/01 - the people who got the investigation to happen and all and now are saying what they thought about it . . . no wonder so many don't want to allow it on here. bov 20:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the above comments. RFerreira 22:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Jersey Girls. Notability seems borderline, probably does not merit a separate article, but deletion is uncalled for. Peter Grey 23:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Having "9/11" and "Truth" in the title does not necessarily make it '9/11 truth movement cruft'. Peter Grey 14:20, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, or if necessary, merge to Jersey Girls. I don't see this being any more notable than the various other conspiracy videos that have been deleted recently.--Cúchullain ^t/c 03:37, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. "Don't see" is the key phrase here, as it seems you haven't seen the film before voting here. As mentioned above, there are no conspiracies discussed in the film; it is a straight discussion of facts regarding the 9/11 timeline and investigation, and the families' reactions. So what you and many editors say above is really quite inaccurate, and reflects poorly on you in that you would vote without verifying that what you say is correct. When you say it's not "any more notable," does that mean, then, that this documentary is less notable than Ludicolo, Laughing Man (Ghost in the Shell), or Vala Mal Doran? That wasn't answered above. Thank you for your input. Badagnani 04:37, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't vote delete because it is a conspiracy video. I deleted it because it is not notable. And yes, it's less notable than those things you point out, which means it's really, really not notable. This seems like just more promotion of 9/11 truth movement cruft we've been seeing recently.--Cúchullain ^t/c 04:58, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: It's a legitimate article on a legitimate subject. It wouldn't kill me if merged with Jersey Girls, but if Ray Charles has a separate article on 'Mess Around", I see no reason not to have separate articles on the Jersey Girls and this film. Wikipedia is full of cross references to trivial information, or so sez Comic Book Guy. That's my non-political opinion. My political opinion is that people who see this as "9/11 cruft" could well be talking out of the other side of their mouths soon, because conservative columnist Andrew Sullivan has said that the administration plans to trot out their own "9/11 widows" to drum up support for completing the removal of the Bill of Rights from the Constitution.Ortolan88 18:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Come on. Both "Mess Around" and Ray Charles have much more notability than this film and the Jersey Girls. And I don't know what you're implying with the "talking out of the other side of their mouths" comment, but I didn't vote to delete because of my opinion of the films content (though I do have one), I voted to delete because I think the film is not notable. I'm believe most of my fellow delete voters had the same reasons.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:28, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think Ortolan88 was pointing out the Ludicolousness of your above statement that you believe a "large bipedal tropical plant"-shaped children's cartoon character to be more notable than a documentary film featuring primary source interviews with the 9/11 family members who were "instrumental in the creation of the 9/11 Commission."¹ I don't think much more needs to be said (or can be said, for that matter) about this. Badagnani 19:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I'm not even going to discuss the pokemon, it's a non-sequitur argument. Just because those things are not notable doesn't mean this is. This film isn't even listed on IMDb, for God's sake. Just because the Jersey Girls are notable doesn't make everything tied to their wagon notable as well. This is just more of the same advertizing for the 9/11 truth movement that has popped up lately.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:05, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article is NPOV, so arguing that it's an ad really doesn't help your case. It'd be nice if more of the arguments against the film treated it the same as a documentary about the Pikary fish of east Surinam, and stopped calling it 9/11 cruft and just "advertizing for the 9/11 truth movement".--Prosfilaes 08:23, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Per nomination and per Aud, Tom Harrison, etc. Dwain 21:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep because it will be useful information to many readers on both sides of any 9/11 debate and features significant figures in that debate. Tyrenius 01:27, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep this film is very well produced and dives headfirst into facts, accounts, and news stories about the war on terror and 9/11. its not a conspiracy movie but a documentary which researches facts not psudoscience. if loose change which is a complete conspiracy theory movie can be kept on here i dont see why 9/11: Path to Truth should ever be asd --— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.18.23 (talk • contribs) User's 16th extant edit. Tyrenius 00:21, 19 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.