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. - Mailer Diablo 05:27, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another non notable conspiracy video. Almost no content, except for links to other articles. Peephole 13:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Yet another recapitulation of Jones' theories. Non-notable. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:18, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Nom and Tom. Morton devonshire 17:21, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete stop the madness. BYU did. --Tbeatty 17:49, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable and unsourced conspiracy thoery.-- danntm ^T _C 17:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not even listed on IMDB. --Aude (talk contribs as tagcloud) 18:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Aaron 20:55, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Gazpacho 21:25, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and Close earliy Not notable and per WP:SNOW Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 22:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete self-published conspiracycruft. Danny Lilithborne 01:11, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Content-free; adds nothing to what is already in the article on Jones. Ergative rlt 22:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Err, has anyone actually tried improving the article?--Pussy Galore 02:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC) indefintely banned for trolling[reply]

To improve the article, one would actually have to watch the video. (My rate for watching conspiracy videos is $100/hour.) If you think you can improve it, go ahead and try. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And how would I do if that if the article were to be deleted?--Pussy Galore 22:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the odds aren't good, but that's primarily because (IMHO) there's nothing that belongs there that isn't in the Jones article. But you won't know unless you try.

• Delete. I feel bad because Striver has spent so much time and effort on this conspiracy stuff, but at this point I think it's just POV pushing and effectively free advertizing for non-notable works and people.--Cúchullain ^t/c 04:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn--MONGO 09:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nearly speedy, as there's no assertion of notability backed by a source other than the author. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn--Mmx1 01:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Crockspot 05:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator. RFerreira 07:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. The only reason Alex Jones is notable enough to have a page at Wiki because he is a crackpot. I cannot believe people fall for this "stuff" (feel free to substitute a more choice word). Wikipedia is not a platform for this "stuff". Burn it. (and protect from re-creation) JungleCat talk/contrib 12:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn --Geneb1955^Talk/_CVU 14:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable GabrielF 16:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The non-notable 9/11 conspiracy-cruft is getting tiresome. JoshuaZ 23:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge... at least until someone can summarize the video. Alex Jones is a notable conspiracy theorist with famous supporters, and as such a series on Jones's works is entirely appropriate for Wikipedia. Calwatch 04:07, 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.