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 Keep as per the request by the nominating editor to withdraw the deletion request and the absence of any calls for the article's erasure. A non-admin closure. And Adoil Descended ( talk) 01:08, 25 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Update My bad: I mistakenly believed the nominating editor withdrew the subject from debate - the withdrawn !vote was by another individual in this discussion. That previous statement about a withdrawal of the AfD was wrong and I apologize for making it. Nonetheless, there are no calls for the article's deletion, so I believe the NAC can stand, with community consensus affirming the article's notability. And Adoil Descended ( talk) 11:46, 25 August 2014 (UTC) reply

I'm an admin, and I confirm the close, although I do not believe the article is overly critical. That, though, is a separate issue. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:43, 26 August 2014 (UTC) reply

911: In Plane Site (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NFILM. A single review in The Portland Mercury does not make this film notable (and the "heraldextra review" does not count as a notable one). There are other films about 911 conspiracy theories, but this particular one seems to be on Wikipedia as part of a larger WP:Walled garden (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beyond Treason, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Gulf War Veterans Association (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dave vonKleist, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Lewis (film director)) and promotionalism. Finally brief mention of this obscure film and its showing on certain small-scale television stations in New Zealand and Australia does not make the film notable. jps ( talk) 23:22, 18 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:07, 19 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:07, 19 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• Vote withdrawn Under WP:NFILM, films that are the subject of "at least two non-trivial articles, at least five years after the film's initial release" tend to be notable. The film received coverage from only one source, the Mercury Article, in 2004 (the same year the film was released). The article listed over 30 short films and gave a paragraph’s worth of summary and critique to each. I would hardly call this “non-trivial” coverage. Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 02:25, 19 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Alt:(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Type:(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Director:(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Producer:(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Short title:(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

• Keep per meeting WP:NF even if considered a bunk conspiracy theory. Sorry to disagree Spirit of Eagle, but we look to WP:OEN only when we do not have WP:GNG met initially. See WP:NTEMP. If a film was notable per guideline when released, we do not demand that it remain in headlines and receive continued critical response. Though continued coverage for years would be nice to have, THAT is not a WP:NF mandate. And the film itself need NOT be the sole topic of sources which speak about it or its production in some manner. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:00, 19 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Wait, how does this film meet notability guidelines? According to WP:N, article subjects need significant coverage from reliable sources (noting that the word source is plural). The only reliable coverage this film has gotten was a paragraph review in the Mercury source. This film has not at any point in time met notability requirements. Also, coverage beyond the initial release is a mandate per WP:NF if a film (like this one) does not receive a wide distribution, a major reward, archival, inclusion in academic curriculum or any of the other section of WP:NFILM. "Historical significance" is the only possible section that this film could be notable under, and that section requires coverage years after the films release. Also, the notability page directly states that a page must "meet either the general notability guideline below or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right" ( WP:NFILM is listed to the right), so the guideline is a valid method for reviewing notability. Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 06:10, 19 August 2014 (UTC) reply

@ Spirit of Eagle:: Yes, in meeting WP:NF, it's a meeting of EITHER WP:GNG or WP:OEN... we do not need both. And here, the GNG is met through significant coverage in multiple sources, even though it appears you depended only upon sources in the article or the claim of "only one" as made by the nominator, and that is not how we determine notability... check WP:NRVE). In a very quick search, I quickly found available (even if not currently used to cite the article) lengthy reviews of the original release in DVD Talk Sept 21, 2004, and of the director's cut in DVD talk Feb 6, 2005, also discussed in Southern Cross, and through a radio interview with the producer, and we do not forget it finding its way into cinematic historical significance though coverage and analysis in multiple books. [1] Wide theatrical distribution is nice... But there are plenty of films with commercial distribution that are non-notable. Though it can spark the required coverage, film notability is not dependent upon wide commercial release. Just sayin'. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:35, 19 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Schmidt, , I think you should add those sources and their content to the article soon-ish. It wouldn't surprise me if this particular film made it to historic significance because of the way it was made and the impact it continues to have on the Truthers movement. Dcs002 ( talk) 13:26, 19 August 2014 (UTC) reply

I am still undecided, but I think further discussion of the sourcing mentioned above is warranted:

[2] DVD Talk or Ian James may be reliable sources for their opinions, but I am uncertain as to whether material posted on this website is acceptable for Wikipedia purposes.

[3] DVD Talk or Gil Jawetz may be reliable sources for their opinions, but I am uncertain as to whether material posted on this website is acceptable for Wikipedia purposes.

[4] Unreliable source posting a trivial mention from a reliable source [i.e. Popular Mechanics].

[5] Greg Palast's interview with the film's producer and his comments regarding the interview. Palast appears to be a notable individual whose opinion is acceptable for inclusion.

[6] There is the trivial mention in Popular Mechanics, but the rest appear to be self-published sources or fringe sources that are generally not considered to be reliable sources.

I only see one source, Palast, that would be considered to fulfill the requirement of "significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject". Location ( talk) 21:11, 19 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• @ Location:: No need to rehash here as it has long since been determined at WP:RSN and by Project Film... DVD Talk is a reliable source for DVD reviews. Reviews are always opinions, just as an review {opinion) written up in Variety serves to show a topic receiving media attention, DVD Talk has been determined as a reliable source for reviews (opinions) about DVDs, even if the topic being reviewed is ultimately discredited as a fringe topic. film notability is determined through media attention, not through the truth or not of the film topic. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 00:09, 20 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• @ MichaelQSchmidt:: I agree that the topic of the film is irrelevant. Regarding DVD Talk, I was only able to find the 2009 discussion in WP:RSN in which you and a few others attempted to resolve the question as to whether or not it was an acceptable source but I don't see that it ever was fully answered. If the film project discussed this further and found that it is an acceptable source, then it would appear that there is enough for this to pass WP:NFILM. Location ( talk) 00:37, 20 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• @ Location:: As it is a review website with editorial oversight and respected by other sources it is being used to cite many film articles, so you are invited to join a discussion about DVD Talk I have begun HERE. To prepare, you might study the numerous discussions of DVD Talk found at other AFDs, or even suggest over at WP:RSN that you feel it should not be considered RS under WP:USEBYOTHERS or WP:RSOPINION. Of course that opens the floodgates to discrediting reviews found in The New York Times and Variety and such other media long-accepted as suitable for film reviews. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 03:53, 20 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• Keep But address NPOV issues. This article seems to be all about how bad the film is, with very little in the way of praise. Also, the Claims section has to be changed to Questions raised, or something like that, because every item is phrased as a question, not as a claim. As for sources, I see no problem. The Portland Mercury and the HeraldExtra reviews, plus the Glenn Beck TV piece all seem to satisfy multiple, independent RS, showing widespread, non-trivial coverage. jps, I would like to know why you dismiss the Daily Herald piece. It says it appeared in their print version on page A5. And what is small scale about it showing on New Zealand's TV3, or Australia's Channel Ten? That generated a well sourced controversy that received national press coverage, which also goes to notability of the film. Spirit of Eagle, I think you should review what WP:GNG defines as "significant coverage" and "trivial coverage." The Portland Mercury clearly meets significant coverage standards, and is definitely not trivial. That's significant coverage as sourced in independent RS, not "reliable coverage." Also, the standard is "widely distributed," not "a major theatrical release." This film was released worldwide, and national broadcasts in New Zealand and twice in Australia should not be diminished. They are major English-speaking nations - two of them - with national coverage. Media broadcasts (like Glenn Beck and the Aus & NZ broadcasts) can be used as RS. We have templates for that. I am no fan of conspiracy theories, least of all 9/11 fringe theories. This particular film actually outrages me! But this article clearly meets GNG on its own (don't forget to count significant TV coverage, as cited in the article but not the references), and it also clearly meets WP:NF, Other evidence, item #1. This is not a close call at all IMO. Dcs002 ( talk) 13:19, 19 August 2014 (UTC) reply

I've withdrawn my vote, as I failed to do enough background research before casting it. Also, I feel that my statement regarding a theatrical release have been misrepresented, as I only listed it as one of many ways that a film could be notable. At no point did I argue that a film's notability hinged on getting such a release. To the contrary, I listed several ways in which it would be possible for a film with a very limited released to be notable such as winning a major award, being included in a national archive or getting coverage in a variety of independent and reliable sources independent of the subject (the latter of which the film has clearly met). Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 14:28, 19 August 2014 (UTC) reply

@ Spirit of Eagle, I'm sorry I misunderstood your meaning. Seems I was looking the other way when you were explaining your point. :( Thanks for being patient. :) Dcs002 ( talk) 03:14, 20 August 2014 (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.