Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gathering Storm (advertisement)

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. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:43, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gathering Storm (advertisement)

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

Simply not notable enough for its own article. Text should be reduced and redirected back to National Organization for Marriage. NYyankees51 (talk) 16:07, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - this is one of the most notable US advertisements of this century. Covered substantially in The New York Times, Salon, MSNBC, [CNN http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0904/11/cnr.09.html]... heck the Deseret News saw fit to cover the fact that Huntsman had not seen the ad. Parodied at The Colbert Report, Funny Or Die, and many others, the parodies themselves drew coverage online from the Entertainment Weekly and Fox News. Even its title drew NYT commentary. I'm not going to pull every quote, but do the gnews archive search and you'll see in talked about in Time, in Washington Post, outside of the US in the Spectator. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:30, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Handily meets WP:GNG. Bad faith nomination, no effort exerted to research sources. Binksternet (talk) 18:30, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Alicia Silverstone, Lance Bass Star In 'Gathering Gay Storm' Video For Funny Or Die" Huffington Post Comedy
- "The Bigots’ Last Hurrah" The New York Times Op-Ed
- "The Gathering Storm of Same-Sex Marriage" UK Spectator
- "Stephen Colbert’s “Gathering Storm”" Salon.com
- "Marriage Equality - Gathering Storm or Rising Tide?" Huffington Post Op-Ed
- "‘Gathering Storm’ group returns with more anti–gay marriage ads" The Minnesota Independent
  Those are all opinion sources. There aren't any news stories on it. NYyankees51 (talk) 19:35, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - a) That's not true. There are news articles on it, mentioned above; and b) that's irrelevant, as WP:GNG does not excise the opinion sections of third-party reliable sources. For much coverage of media, opinion sources are the key sources being looked for (book reviews, for example.) It shows notability in that they are noting it. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:53, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - "Bad faith nomination": do you have evidence for this or is this just an unsubstantiated, baseless, unfounded, and false personal attack? – Lionel ^(talk) 08:58, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - By bad faith nomination I mean that NYyankees51 did not perform the least bit of research to discover reliable sources. If he had, he would have found them, and he would have known the article was a keeper. Instead, he filed this tendentious Afd, requiring the rest of us to take time out of our lives, research the topic, and respond. Binksternet (talk) 15:30, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Bad faith entails "intentional deceit of others". Your usage of this term is a personal attack. I suggest you apologize lest this incident be added to your lengthy record of incivility. – Lionel ^(talk) 10:12, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Your concern for civility is laudable. I wonder, though, why you do not care as much about the time-wasting Afd filed by NYY. Binksternet (talk) 16:35, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Technical issue - I can't seem to fix the template at the top, anyone know what the problem is? NYyankees51 (talk) 19:33, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Template fixed; you left the closing brackets off of the NOM wikilink. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:57, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge - Nat has done a bang-up job gathering material about this advertisement but I just don't see the point of leaving it out on its own as an independent article. I can think of a few true advertisements of the century (buy the world a Coke comes to mind, for some reason) and most of them are incorporated into their rightful parent article. - Haymaker (talk) 18:00, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You and Wikipedia appear to differ in regard to judging notability of articles. Binksternet (talk) 18:28, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There is an article primarily about that Coke ad campaign, which is a notable ad of a previous century. Plenty of ad campaigns have their own pages. And before I am granted too much credit for the content of the article, most of it comes from material added by others to the NOM article, as noted in the original edit. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:38, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:00, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:00, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, significant coverage in multiple secondary WP:RS sources. — Cirt (talk) 03:00, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: this media event does not have lasting significance; fails WP:EVENT. – Lionel ^(talk) 08:55, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not an event, it is a piece of media, one which inspired other pieces of media. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:55, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per the above sources mentioned by NatGertler and Binksternet. I'm not sure what the relevant guideline for commercials is, but this would meet the WP:GNG, at least. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:50, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Clearly fits WP:GNG. AV3000 (talk) 03:21, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This nomination is ABYSMAL. WP:GNG is clearly met, and nominator should do 10 pushups.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 04:09, 14 December 2011 (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.