Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conspiracy of Silence (second nomination)

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. Dakota 03:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conspiracy of Silence[edit]

First Deletion Reason: Non-notable film failing the requirements of Wikipedia:Notability (films). Part of the Conspiracy Cruft Wikipedia:Vanispamcruftisement of The Franklin Coverup Scandal, which was completely discredited 17 years ago and wholely a creature of the blogosphere. A Google News search for the film results in ZERO results. Morton Devonshire^Yo 06:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it is unreleased, too. MER-C 06:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - wow. Just wow. delete per nom.--Tbeatty 07:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete never released, making it kind of hard to claim notability. Brimba 07:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, didn't this already fail an AFD before? The film is notable because of the powerful special interests that succeeded in getting it pulled from television. Joe1141 07:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Non-notable unreleased film. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for people who think black helicopters are following them. --Charlene 08:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nice, Morton, and typical to provide no mention of or link to the previous AFD discussion. Thanks to Joe for remembering this. Also, there are no "requirements" to Wikipedia:Notability (films) because it's not a guideline because it has no consensus. Finally, Google News only covers about the last month of "news". Since this is a 1994 production, it would be rather stunning if it were considered news 12 years later. Derex 09:36, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to scandal article or Delete. Fails WP:V, has no meaningful cites, and no signs of any reliable sources. It was a stub at its last AfD, and its still a stub now, there's no evidence that anyone can or will expand it. The keep arguments at the previous AfD seem to mostly boil down to "I've heard of this conspiracy theory, it must be notable". "I've heard of it" is not a reliable source. Standards are higher now, and it's time for this sad little stub of an article to go bye-bye. Xtifr _tälk 11:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and no WP:RS and WP:V sources. After the last AFD there should have been a rush to bring the article up to snuff, however I am sure someone will promise to do this again and still not. Our policies trump all, and WP:RS and WP:V are quite important ones. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 15:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NF, per nom. = Crockspot 17:03, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - responding to Joe1141 above - I would say that if there's any evidence that the decision to pull the film generated significant controversy at the time by all means let us know about it - but without any references to such a controversy all I see is an unaired made-for-tv documentary which certainly isn't notable. GabrielF 17:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NF and nom. --Strothra 18:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unreleased film. How many unpublished manuscripts, unvoiced thoughts and unreleased films are there in the world? As for the article, how does an "unreleased film" have a release date? Shouldn't it be an "unrelease date?" If it ever becomes notable, recreate the article.Edison 05:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Boldly redirect. The article was already merged to a new draft of the Franklin Coverup Scandal article, which is a grand merger of all the articles on people/books/etc. mentioned in the whole conspiracy theory. That draft was being prepared before this AfD was opened; it has now been installed as the main article. The idea is to redirect all the minor articles, which had been subject to all sorts of conspiracy cruft, bizarre allegations, biased and weak sourcing, to the main article which adheres strictly to well-sourced facts. The film gets a couple of sentences there, which is about what it's worth. So unless there are strenuous objections I'm just going to perform the redirect along with the others (there are 3 or 4 total) and save us waiting out the AfD. Please see Talk:Franklin Coverup Scandal for the discussion and detail. --MCB 06:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
At present the Franklin Coverup Scandal article appears to referense this movie -- if that were to remainthe case, then I would "vote" for a redirect. If, however, the FCS reference is simply a place-holder which will be deleted as soon as this article is, then my view would be that this article should remain, as a means for future researchers to know what the film was, what it was (allegedly) about, and that it was never aired. -- Simon Cursitor 08:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Much discussion has gone into merging the associated articles into a single one that would pass any reasonable muster. As MCB said above, the current revision of the Franklin Coverup Scandal article is working towards that even as we speak. So I would agree with you in that I hope people do not choose to delete it once the merge is complete.--Rosicrucian 16:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Simon, the reference in Franklin Coverup Scandal is not a place-holder; it's meant to be the "permanent" (well, as permanent as anything on Wikipedia) destination of the material on the film. --MCB 19:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, and what not. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 15:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Franklin Coverup Scandal, as text is already merged.--Rosicrucian 16:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without redirect. The phrase "conspiracy of silence" is potentially too common, IMHO, to be used as a redirect to any individual incident. Practically all conspiracies involve a hell of a lot of silence, in the rare cases where they actually exist. --Aaron 03:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per NuclearZer0. JungleCat talk/contrib 14:25, 16 November 2006 (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.