Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/911 Missing Links


 * 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. Userfied before deletion.  MBisanz  talk 02:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

911 Missing Links
Absolutely do NOT delete this entry. Whether you agree or disagree, this entry relates to a valid topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.24.26.165 (talk) 21:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable conspiracy google video. Blatant spam but admin refused speedy delete. Peephole (talk) 01:57, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete as spam. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:05, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

This is Phaser901, the original author of the Wikipedia article in question. It most certainly is not "blatant spam". The article is intended as information and summary on a significant 911 conspiracy-related documentary. Please detail to me how I should move this article from "spam-grade" to acceptable? What sentences in particular are problematic? I have outlined the subjects discussed in the film. They can easily be confirmed by watching the content of the film. Also note that it is not a Google Video release, the primary dissemination is through the official website. This is similar to other popular Internet releases such as Zeitgeist; GV just happens to be popular for viewing. Also it is not "non-notable" as it discusses topics both inside and outside the scope of current 9/11 conspiracy research. There is little "retreading on old ground" as is found on many Loose-Change like releases. Phaser501 (talk)


 * Withholding keep or delete opinion, as the author has asked a very cogent question and shows a desire to improve the article to meet wiki standards. At the very least, the closing admin should seriously consider WP:USERFYing the article back to its author in the event of a delete being upheld. To the author, I strongly suggest finding and showing sources that show notability... that is, reviews or commmentary about the film from sources not related to the subject... and not from blogs. Bring in reviews from major sites, either positive or negative to show real-world interest in the film itself. Feel free to ask for my input, as I am not familiar with the film, but am so on what Wiki expects for an article.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 00:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Delete: non-notable and reads like a news release. Jofakēt (talk) 22:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Delete The sources provided for this article are worthless; two are simply links to the video itself, and two are links to blogs. None of them provide any form of noteability and they all fail the sourcing guidelines. Jtrainor (talk) 10:20, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Note to closing admin: Please WP:USERFY this back to User:Phaser501/sandbox/911 Missing Links. It may yet gain sourcing that meets wiki's standards and he might bring it back then. No need to chase of a contributor.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 06:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Delete : non-notable. Locewtus (talk) 21:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Extra Speedy Delete This has no place on an encyclopaedia. Yossiea (talk) 16:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * 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.