Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/9-11: The Road to Tyranny (3rd nomination)

Delete decision
"lack of third party sources avaiable for this film": IMDB, Google Video

"one of the keep advocates may be a single purpose account and another is very well known for being an ultra-extreme inclusionist": Even so, does that make the discussion a consensus to delete? And anyway, have the many well-known ultra-exclusionist (only for articles of a specific topic) been similarly discounted?

My question remains unanswered: what changed since the first two nominations that has made the deletion more compelling? PizzaMargherita 12:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Without checking at this time, if some of the "keep" comments were waiting for WP:RS to be added, and haven't yet been, it does become more reasonable to delete. And a "no concensus" result is more analogous to "voting cancelled" in conventional votes than a vote result to keep, so it's more reasonable to do revotes until a definitative result is obtained.  So your questions is both possible to answer and irrelevant.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 12:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Funny the closing admin wouldn't mention any of that and would give the arguments I quoted above. PizzaMargherita 13:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


 * It should be obvious that a "no consensus" result is not the same as "keep", although it has the same immediate effect on the article. If they were the say, there would be no need for a "no consensus" result. &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 13:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't believe this addresses all of my concerns. PizzaMargherita 05:40, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * So why don't you ask the closing admin for the admin's reasoning? JoshuaZ 06:00, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, I assumed he would be listening. Ok, I'll drop a message in their talk page. PizzaMargherita 07:30, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have pointed out that people can walk in fidget with IMDB like Amazon reviews- or that's what people say and that it isn't accurate, and that references from newspaper pundits were desired. In regards to the ultra-inclusionist, about 80% of the advocates on AfD are to delete - most stuff on AfD is pretty dubious to even get called up, so a person who goes and advocates keep on about 95+++% and possibly even 99+% of articles, and usually gives very minimal reasoning even when the overwhelming opinion is against them, raises a bell - perhaps if the ultra-deletionists had tried to AfD Gilad Shalit or Abu Ghraib then I would be worried. Finally, which I should have noted, that WP:NOT a repository for fringe and borderline nonsensical conspiracy theoriese. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 07:42, 19 September 2006 (UTC)