Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/911 Eyewitness

message: We would prefer that you just leave this entry deleted. Your place has too much dis information than information and has proven itself incapable of providing the minimal of neutrality. It was stated this was not a popularity contest, yet it was. It was who was popular enough within those with the tools to understand your process. Stacked deck. Your loss. We do not look bad for your deletion. STRONG DELETE 911 Eyewitness 23:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  reccommend you mind your own agents 

message: Award Winning Documentary with free link to google video is not advertising. Propaganda is subjective and obscure. POV is what it is, actual point of view of a video camera on Sept 11, 2001 with scientific evidence that you can use to determine what is going on. Too strong for this place delete 911 Eyewitness 23:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  comment about documentary 

message: To the newbies: Votes go on the main page, not the talk page. Crusading is frowned upon and generally makes you look like an idiot. The proper phrasing is Keep -- you can tell an AfD newbie because they invariably use "Do not delete" instead, and newbies do not get the same weight as established editors. Sign your posts with four tildes to get a signature. Any questions? Haikupoet 19:18, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a soapbox|Wikipedia is not a soapbox]]

message: "The only reason for wanting it removed is because your political views disagree.  We're already to the point major news networks won't or can't talk about it, articles and forums like these are one of the only ways of freely expressing your opinion left."
Wiki is not a forum or a place for expressing your opinion. In fact, it is the opposite. It is a place to neutrally report of topics of encyclopedic interest. --Mmx1 21:36, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wiki is not a Forum 

message: The content in the article is relevant and useful. Relevant because it deals with a touchstone point in history, and useful because it includes information that further adds and contextualises the events.  Deletion of relevant and useful material in the name of tidying up is a sobriquet for censoring of unpopular ideas. Kmikl 15:57, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Keep Relevant Content 

message: It's too late now(and it doesn't look like it would've mattered), but in case this ever goes back up, I'm gonna post here what I was in the process of writing right as the vote ended: 
I'm changing my vote to Keep
From WP:OR:
"In some cases, where an article (1) makes descriptive claims the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable adult without specialist knowledge, and (2) makes no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claims, a Wikipedia article may be based entirely on primary sources (examples would include apple pie or current events), but these are exceptions."
Because it is available for free on google, information about the film is easily verifiable by any reasonable adult without specialist knowledge thus allowing the film itself to count as verification under Wikipedia policy. As this is being used to keep non-controversial articles in existence, it would be POV to not allow it to be used for controversial articles, just because many of us (myself included) disagree about the film's accuracy(it's an article about the film, not the film's content). The article just needs to be cleaned up. Shadowoftime 05:27, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:Cite was not the main issue, but notability. If there's nobody talking about it, it's hard to argue that anyone cares. --Mmx1 05:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vote change

message: if you delete this page you might aswell delete all other pages like them, like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Maltese_Double_Cross_–_Lockerbie and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_of_Silence which are both alternative accounts to the offical one, aka conspiracy theory documentaries) etc etc.
can't you just admit the fact that you want to delete this page specifically because it's 9/11 related.
well guess what? your goverment is lying to you and as a matter of fact i think you all know it, atleast subconciously, you're just in a state what a psychologist would call denial.
i sencerly hope i won't find myself in a trench somewhere fighting you americans in WW3, pls stop the madman Bush!
:The page wasn't deleted because it contained alternative viewpoints, it was deleted because it was non-notable and it was basically an advertisement. Ryan Salisbury 21:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One look here will show you that 911 conspiracy theories are not all deleted from Wikipedia. What was up for deletion is the film, not the theory it presents. Shadowoftime 01:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: WTF

message: Many people try to explain a catastrophe by putting it in terms that they can understand. They look at the evidence and because the presented facts don't fit in with their conceived notions of what can or should happen they, through an internal process, filter and edit information to fit their ideals. Basically, this is what is happening to this guy. He feels that the buildings could not have collapsed the way they did. Ergo, the government *must* have been involved to drum up support for a 'war on terror'. There are a couple of problems with this - aside from the fact that it was the basis for a movie already (the long kiss goodnight). 1) If the government had a hand in this they wouldn't have made it a 'controlled' demolition. If they wanted to rile the public up they need to maximize the damage - not minimize the impact by dropping the building into the basement. Maximum impact for a government conspiracy would have the building fall over and take out as many buildings and people as possible. 2) An explosive demolition of the building could not have been hidden. Have any of you people seen Discover Channel documentaries about controlled explosive demolitions? There are wires all over the place. You couldn't use wireless either - too much interference to ensure effective timing of the charges. Additionally, columns have *huge* amounts of explosives, wrapping, and other material around them in order to make the shaped charges actually effective. How woudl this have been hidden? Also a significant amount of prep work is also involved. It is likely that someone would have noticed this. 3) So many people would have been involved with this that it would have been impossible to keep it a secret this long. Its tough enough to keep 3 people from talking how are you going to keep every one of the dozens, if not hundreds, of people that would have to be involved from talking? 4) The videos *clearly* show the collapse of the buildings starting at or very near the point of impact. So now you have to argue that the pilots were actually so well trained that they could have flown the plane directly into a predetermined spot on the building - even though all of the evidence we have argues against them having any real skill. Additionally, you need to argue that somehow the explosive charges they used would have been able to survive the impact and the fire so that they could go off at the right time. 5) The statement that the fire would not have been hot enough to melt steel is correct. However, no one has said that the steel had to melt - it only had to get hot enough to allow a weakened structure to deform. Once the deformation started retaining bolts, joints, and other critical structures would have started to fail. No 'melting' is actually necessary to produce a catastrophic failure. 
Basically, in order to call this entry 'factual' you have to make wild assumptions, ignore certain physical laws, and ignore critical evidence. Since the point of an encyclopedia is to present *fact* and not fantasy this entry should be deleted. 
Rapier1 18:06, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article was about a movie. I too believe that 9/11 conspiracy theories are a bunch of hooey, but to keep POV out of this, it should have nothing to do with what that movie was about. Star Wars is not factual and it has a Wikipedia entry. That said, this film was deemed non-notable(which is a valid reason for deltion) and the article has already been deleted. No need to debate what happened at 9/11 since this is the talk page for a film(and one that has already been removed from Wikipedia at that).Shadowoftime 02:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: My suggestion? Delete this garbage