Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Maltese Double Cross – Lockerbie


 * 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: per Notability, the fact that the references section of this article establishes that the film has received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" implies that the film is notable. The only arguments for deletion presented concerned claims that the film is non-notable, and the assertion that conspiracy theories (even if notable per Notability) are not properly the subject of Wikipedia articles. The latter argument is rejected as having no basis in Wikipedia policies or practices. Furthermore, a strong supermajority of established users favored retention of the article. John254 02:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The Maltese Double Cross – Lockerbie

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

First deletion reason: Fails Notability (films) criteria, namely:  (1) the film is not widely distributed and has not received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics; (2) the film is not historically notable, as evidenced by one or more of the following: (i) Publication of at least two non-trivial articles, at least five years after the film's initial release; (ii) The film was deemed notable by a broad survey of film critics, academics, or movie professionals, when such a poll was conducted at least five years after the film's release; (iii) The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release; (iv) The film was featured as part of a documentary, program, or retrospective on the history of cinema; (3) the film has not received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking; (4) the film has not been selected for preservation in a national archive; and (5) the film is not "taught" as a subject at an accredited university or college with a notable film program. Further, there are zero mentions of the film in a Google News Search, and in an ordinary Google search, yields 16 pages of results to blogosphere articles, none of which are to a reliable source.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 16:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Update. Per Tom's suggestion below, I basically re-wrote the entire article (except the "resume" section--I don't know why it has that title--which needs to be entirely reworked by someone familiar with the film), which was actually kind of interesting considering I knew nothing about this topic before.  Using Lexis/Nexis I added over 20 sources from 8 or 9 mainstream news publications and discussed various screenings of the film--and the controversies surrounding them--as well as reaction from reviewers, the US and UK governments, and family members of victims of the bombing.  I tried to do this in an extremely NPOV manner--personally I have no opinion about this film as I've never seen it--and think I did okay with that, but please feel free to improve on what's there now. I also added to the intro to reflect changes in the body and deleted a section on South Africa.  I think the article now undeniably passes the notability criteria, and will again ask that Morton consider withdrawing the nomination since the facts have changed since his nomination and since that will save us all some time. If a couple of people want to read over what I've done and work on it further that would be great since this was such a massive change (I made the same suggestion on the article talk page). In particular, you'll note that footnotes 10 and 20 (as well as 12 and 21 and 7 and 23) are to the same articles. I don't know how to do the ref formatting such that you get that those little a's and b's next to footnotes that allow you to list the original source only once so if someone can fix that (or tell me how to) it would be appreciated.--Bigtimepeace | talk |  contribs 23:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Section 1

 * Keep. According to the article, it was shown on UK's Channel 4.  We have lots of articles on minor television movies, so this one shouldn't be treated any differently than DinoCroc. Could use some trimming and additional sources, though, but then so do lots of articles. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 17:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * DinoCroc, of course, was widely distributed and has received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics, including the venerable Roger Ebert.   MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 17:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Ebert reviewed DinoCroc? Do you have a link? I'd love to read him trash it. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 17:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually I could not find an Ebert review for DinoCroc (tagline: "It feeds on fear"....Mmmmmm, sweet, nourishing fear) online. It's a fairly recent movie so normally it would be up on his web site.  Anyway it's obvious he would hate it.  Ebert loves films featuring monsters that are a cross between a prehistoric carnivore and a rhinoceros--see his review of the overlooked 1999 film DinoRino--but rightly believes that cross breeding a dinosaur and a crocodile, even for a movie using CGI, is just plain stupid and dangerous.--Bigtimepeace | talk |  contribs 05:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * IMDB doesn't list any external reviews for The Maltese Double Cross. It has 20 for DinoCroc.    --Tbeatty 07:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The television broadcast was reviewed in The Independent by Allison Pearson, May 14, 1995. I'm sure there are other reviews in the 220 Lexis/Nexis hits. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 16:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Here's some more from Lexis/Nexis so we can be done with this, I again suggest that delete voters and the nom reconsider their positions. From the Sydney Morning Herald (Australia), May 16, 1995, article title "Lockerbie disaster: TV film claims a cover-up."  Article makes reference to the fact that "Since the documentary, The Maltese Double Cross, went to air in Britain last week, US and British authorities have attempted to discredit four key witnesses interviewed in the film" and includes a statement from the US government (how often does the US government comment on films?).  From The Independent (London), November 11, 1994, article title "Festival cancels Lockerbie film."  Article notes "A controversial film about the Lockerbie bombing, due to have its premiere at the London Film Festival, has been withdrawn by the festival's organisers under threat of a libel action by a retired US intelligence agent."  London Film Festival made an official comment about withdrawing the film.  From The Times, November 12, 1994, "MPs to see Lockerbie film in the Commons" (self-explanatory title, and article could be used to sort this statement in the article about the screening for MPs).  A (negative) review by Stuart Jeffries appeared in the May 12, 1995 issue of The Guardian newspaper.  It was also reviewed by Barry Oliver in The Australian on May 16, 1995.  More recently, well known journalist and filmmaker John Pilger, in a September 15, 2006 column in The Guardian referred to this and Francovich's other films as "extraordinary" and said it "destroyed the official truth that Libya was responsible for the sabotage of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie in 1988."  Are we done here now, or does anyone want more sources that prove this film is notable and this entire AfD ill-advised? Because these are just the first few things I found on a Lexis/Nexis search.  Lexis/Nexis is good for this kind of thing--finding sources for stuff that was news awhile ago but is not anymore--and it shows why a lack of Google News hits means nothing. If Morton does not want to withdraw his nom and/or delete voters don't want to change their votes in the face of this evidence and the festival prize, I would surely like to know why.--Bigtimepeace | talk |  contribs 21:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It might be useful to add some of these references so we can see what the resulting article looks like. Tom Harrison Talk 12:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm working on this now--already added in a bunch of stuff--and will post a note at the top here when I'm done.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Nice work, Tom Harrison Talk 12:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: 220 Lexis/Nexis hits and the film won first prize for documentary at the Edinburgh Film Festival. Changing my vote to Strong keep. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 17:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you have a reliable source that says that? The only record I find for 1994 shows the Israel documentary "The Price is Right" winning the Drambuie Edinburgh Film Festival in 1994.    MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 18:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The New York Times, May 3, 1997, Allan Francovich; Film Maker Was 56: "His most recent film, "The Maltese Double Cross" (1994), about the destruction of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, won first prize for documentary film making at the Edinburgh Film Festival." Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 18:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - much improved Tom Harrison Talk 12:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC) Delete Promotional conspiracy cruft Tom Harrison Talk 20:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * KEEP. Important documentary articles. Please don't delete. It only needs to be cleaned up abit. Noahcs 21:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Not notable for encyclopedia. Not sure what Dinocroc has to do with the notability of this film.  Was it advertised on Dinocroc or something? If so, it explains why it isn't notable I guess.  --Tbeatty 02:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You may find this page instructive. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 16:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess my sense of humour is too dry and subtle. --Tbeatty 22:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep per Gamaliel and the guideline at Notability (films). Film won first prize for documentary at Edinburgh Film Festival, "the longest continually running film festival in the world" according to the Wiki article.  The film thus passes the third criterion for notable films mentioned by Morton.  Google News hits are, of course, irrelevant, particularly for a film released in 1994.  220 Lexis/Nexis hits obviously helps to establish notability and is far more important.  The article obviously needs to be sourced better--and apparently can--and information like the film festival award should be included.  Poor sourcing is not a reason to delete this though, and neither is the fact that this film advocates a conspiracy theory.  Morton should re-consider his nomination, since Gamaliel has shown the film fulfills what Wikipedia:Notability (films) calls a "secondary" criterion ("Most films that satisfy this criterion already satisfy the first criterion").--Bigtimepeace | talk |  contribs 05:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You're right, the nomination should be reconsidered and withdrawn now that the film meets the criteria of Notability (films), regardless of our personal distaste for conspiracy crap. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 16:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Wikipedia is not to be used to promote conspiracy nonsense.  Pablo   Talk  |  Contributions  07:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. You really need a better rationale than that.  If your argument was a sufficient one to AfD articles on movies, we would also have to delete the article on Oliver Stone's JFK.  I know nothing about this Lockerbie movie but it cannot possibly advocate a conspiracy theory more ridiculous than the one Stone described in his film.  Delete voters should at least engage with the argument that this film does meet Notability (films) since that seems to be the real question.  Simply saying "conspiracy nonsense" and "cruft" is not going to win the day here.--Bigtimepeace | talk |  contribs 20:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep This is a factual, documentary account of the Lockerbie bombing, which for some reason has not been shown in the United States. It has been broadcast on British TV, and can therefore be cited as a source in any future court case (eg the upcoming appeal against conviction by Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi).Phase4 17:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - The film seems to be just barely notable enough. - Crockspot 21:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, fails notability. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 22:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Could you please elaborate TDC? Given the information provided in the AfD (multiple news articles, a prize at a film festival) and standards for notable films why specifically do you think this fails notability?--Bigtimepeace | talk |  contribs 00:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep being shown on Channel 4 and winning awards at the Edinburgh festival should be enough to satisfy these notability concerns without mentioning all the coverage in the UK press Bigtimepeace has provided. Catchpole 08:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, notable. Everyking 12:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, won at least one major film award, passes the notability guideline. Italiavivi 19:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, passes notability guidelines. --Fredrick day 09:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. The attention this film received as provided by Bigtimepeace shows that this film is notable, and has earned a spot in film history. (A sidenote: The five year theshold in WP:MOVIE looks rather arbitrary, after all, we write articles about films as they are released, without much hesitation, not five years afterwards). Sjakkalle (Check!)  10:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep; an award-winning film seems notable enough. *Dan T.* 12:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Section 2

 * Keep. Historically important and more notable than average film already covered in Wikipedia. Juzon Vürßt 17:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Clearly notable. --MichaelLinnear 06:37, 30 August 2007 (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.