Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dishonorable Disclosures

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. (non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser ^TSU 00:44, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dishonorable Disclosures

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This “documentary” received little attention from reliable sources at the time of release, and all discussion of it even in unreliable sources died within a week. It is clear not notable, and appears to be using Wikipedia to promote an election season smear campaign. —Kerfuffler harass
stalk 18:04, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep This is a pointy nomination. Regardless what any editor (or critic) thinks of this 22 minute film, it has receieved more than passable coverage from RS such as the New York Times, UPI, Washington Post and the AP. Can't get much more RSy than that. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 18:10, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep What LGR said; this is very notable. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 18:37, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Film has received substantive coverage in primo reliable sources. RCraig09 (talk) 18:51, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep I agree that it was a flash in the pan, and I think this is a weakness of notability policy, but it clearly meets the requirements. If this wasn't during silly season, I doubt it would have ever received any coverage, and certainly wouldn't have been an article. Glaucus (talk) 19:27, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I find that methodology inherently faulty. The video in question has no hits on news.google.com, aside from the YouTube video. Many of Obama and Romney's campaign ads, however, have many hits in reliable sources; by your yardstick, each of those ads deserves a Wikipedia article more than this video. I think it's inherently obvious why such a policy would be a bad idea. —Kerfuffler harass
stalk 19:39, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Gee whiz, why are we here? This topic is far too notable. Binksternet (talk) 20:48, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To rephrase: by all notability characteristics (the only one it even measures on being news articles dispatched immediately after release), this political ad is less notable than the normal plethora of political ads which we specifically do not allow articles for, and are even reticent to mention on the candidates' own pages. Ergo, according to long-standing policy, this political ad should not have an article. —Kerfuffler harass
stalk 22:03, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Observations The pertinent guideline/policy is at WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. Granted, the primo news coverage was concentrated in the first two weeks after release, but: ● such coverage may return after the film is shown in "key states" in upcoming months (as promised in Fox News interview videos), and ● it is a matter of personal opinion whether it is in fact a political ad. Also ● the involvement of SEALs in such a film is itself an issue that's been mentioned in some references but not yet included in this article. RCraig09 (talk) 23:32, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly not my personal opinion that it's a political ad; even Fox News called it that—and that wasn't even in the editorial section. —Kerfuffler harass
stalk 23:36, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A cursory glance at the sources is all that's needed to see that this nomination is patent nonsense. Belchfire-TALK 00:51, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NTEMP: "Notability is not temporary: once a topic has been the subject of 'significant coverage' in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." This has applied to films time and again. Erik (talk | contribs) 11:44, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:22, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:22, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep WP:NF is easily met per coverage in multiple reliable sources. Suggest a snow closure. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:45, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It received enough attention in the national news to warrant an article. Regardless of whether it's an honest non-partisan documentary film, a swift-boat style political smear campaign, or something in between, keeping the article in it's current incarnation isn't really using Wikipedia to promote a cause. AzureCitizen (talk) 04:19, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Passes WP:GNG & WP:NF.--JayJasper (talk) 04:39, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep. Plenty of reliable sources. Insomesia (talk) 00:27, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Recieves well known sources and can be useful for encyclopedic records, mostly WP: Notability in the news media and a variety of sources, to promote a cause--GoShow (...............) 04:22, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.