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. Sango123 20:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non notable conspiracy webvideo. Peephole 14:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Edit - Peephole...why am I not surprised? Sorry if you don't believe in a world where there are men out there who want to threaten the population and go so far as to kill for their own slice of power. Anyways, the article needs a few more citations, clean-up on the table of contents, and expansion to the External Links section. Other than that, if it's publically available and can be cited beyond the original publisher, then it's okay. Also, it must be POV to be deleting films made by Alex Jones; I'm seeing articles of two other films of his that aren't being considered for deletion, and yet they have less content than this article. Now, how hypocritical is that? I say edit first, then decide to keep it or not. THANK you.mikecucuk 17:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.189.164.210 (talk • contribs) .[reply]
• Delete per nom, non-notable. Fails WP:NOT. Morton devonshire 17:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable. Typical time-wasting, POV-pushing AfD nom. PizzaMargherita 19:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per wikipedia is NOT a sopabox--IworkforNASA 19:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, soapbox article with no discussion of anything about the video except its content. Gazpacho 20:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete self-published, Internet-distributed conspiracycruft. Danny Lilithborne 20:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete irrespective of content for failing to even assert notability, much less back it up with reliable sources. Sandstein 20:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Appears notable. IMDB entry [1], 53,100 Google hits [2]. Does not seem like an inappropriate subject for an article. --Hyperbole 21:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom--RCT 21:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails all tests of notability. wikipediatrix 22:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Yeah, it has an IMDB entry, but it only has 205 votes! Non-notable. GabrielF 01:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. with "Google Video Watch it Here" and the way the article is written lead me to think this violates WP:VANITY. The article also is lacking reliable sources. --Aude (talk contribs as tagcloud) 01:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per wikipediatrix --Tbeatty 02:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Burn it...we can dance around the fire like cannibals.--MONGO 09:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom—(Kepin)^{RING THE LIBERTY BELL} 12:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Film is notable given its topic. --Striver 14:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Mmx1 15:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The read on this article is hilarious. What type of idiot believes in this stuff? Pseudotumor 17:28, 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, also because Wikipedia is not a soapbox for conspiracy theories, nor free advertising for this Jones person's fanfilms. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete This is not notable for the wiki. Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 22:18, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this valuable addition to Wikipedia Mujinga 01:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• My comment at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/9-11:_The_Road_to_Tyranny_(3rd_nomination) applies here as well - the only difference with this one is that it doesn't appear to even bother asserting popularity at all! RN 01:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Appears notable.لقمانLuqman 15:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - clearly NN, we do not need a separate article for every NN work by Alex Jones (radio) unless it happens to be notable by itself. My Alt Account 01:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Rather well known. --Pussy Galore 02:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User is a probable sockpuppet, contributions consist almost entirely of talk pages and conspiracy AfD votes. GabrielF 13:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Response No Personal Attacks please. request a checkuser or kindly retract your allegations.--Pussy Galore 15:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No need GabrielF, I requested a checkuser on myself. "No malicous activity from this IP". I await your apology.--Pussy Galore 22:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They turned down the checkuser because the request was not formed properly. It is out of policy to randomly perform checkuser requests. Vote stacking however is a policy violation. Your editing profile suggests sock puppetry according to the sock puppet page but there is not enough evidence to perform a checkuser. It is a not violation of WP:NPA to point this out. --Tbeatty 23:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The check user was done. It's here : checkuser

It is a violation of WP:NPA to misrepresent the findings of a checkuser in the course of an Afd though. As per Mackensen, "the activity from your IP address is completely above board". The checkuser was not 'turned down because the request was not properly formed'. The request was not performed randomly, it was done at my behest, due to the overwhelming number of editors who did, and continue to, falsely, and without any evidence, label me as a malicous sock puppet. The checkuser was carried out, I am not a malicous sock puppet. read it for yourselves. --Pussy Galore 23:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Striving" to be different, are we? Morton devonshire 00:45, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ho-ho-ho, how my sides nearly split. Shouldn't you be posting that in requests for checkuser?--Pussy Galore 00:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In Battleship, they call that a 'hit'. Morton devonshire 00:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I've actually devoted a whole subsection on my talk page to you people who engage in personal attacks on me without any basis. You are most welcome to contribute, otherwise, pleae cut out the unwarranted personal attacks, unless you are going to provide some form of evidence. --Pussy Galore 01:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pussy Galore, you haven’t been here that long, and already you seem to be "going against the grain" on these AfD’s which the majority don’t have a WP:SNOW chance. Your talk page is very fascinating. You are mad at people who claim you are a sock, but an editor with your skills cannot remember your past user names and passwords? Hmmm. Also, your comments to some are not civil lately. JungleCat talk/contrib 01:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PG has now been indef banned from Wikipedia. So sad. Morton devonshire 18:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Wikipedia is not a platform for this cruft. JungleCat talk/contrib 13:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep-Going against the grain. Keep per Hyperbole's comments. Notable enough for aIMDB entry [3] and 53,100 Google hits [4] makes it wiki-worthy. Arbusto 17:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Only 208 people voted on the video at IMDb. Jones is notable; this isn't the case with every video he ever self-released. I think this is advertizing for a small but loud minority.--Cúchullain ^t/c 23:43, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Crockspot 05:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Angus McLellan --Geneb1955^Talk/_CVU 15:57, 12 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.