Talk:Terrorstorm

This title should redirect to Alex Jones (radio) per the results of this DRV. This title is simply a miscapitalization of TerrorStorm. -N 22:27, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Yes check.svg|20px]] Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 22:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't delete please.
This movie has had half a million views on Google Video alone. I think it needs an article on it's own, and over time, if it's not deleted I'll improve it.
 * The article has been deleted numerous times. See here and here.  The movie has no place on Wikipedia.   Pablo   Talk  |  Contributions  20:30, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Where's the AfD where it was discussed? —C.Fred (talk) 20:36, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Could you explain why it has no place on Wikipedia?Joehoe665 20:37, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Here and here.   Pablo   Talk  |  Contributions  20:39, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Found it. Redirect restored per the AfD. —C.Fred (talk) 20:44, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Here's the biggie: the deletion review request on the article (21 June). —C.Fred (talk) 00:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The search phrase Terrorstorm gives 290.000 results on Google, America freedom to Fascism gives 279.000, though, this video does have an article on wikipedia. Therefore i think it's reasonable for this movie to have one as well.Joehoe665 21:00, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Google hits is a non-existant standard for inclusion.  Pablo   Talk  |  Contributions  21:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Then what does keep this video from having it's own article? I have yet to see a reasonable argument other then that it has been deleted before. Joehoe665 21:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Have you read the deletion discussions? Pablo  Talk  |  Contributions  21:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, and the only two arguments i encountered were the idea that this movie is unknown, which I simply not true, and the fact that it has been deleted before. It's been deleted before because the video was relatively unknown when it was just released, since this is no longer the case I think it should get it's own article. Joehoe665 21:15, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You're misinterpreting the arguments. The arguments are that it doesn't satisfy our standards for inclusion.  And it still doesn't.   Pablo   Talk  |  Contributions  21:26, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If it's so notable, then you've got some links to reliable sources that discuss the article? As a rule of thumb, blogs don't count for the verifiability test. —C.Fred (talk) 00:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)