Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brainwashing 101 (2nd 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 Keep per WP:SNOW, near-unanimous voting. Non-admin closure JForget 22:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Brainwashing 101

Brainwashing 101 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Very few notable sources that discuss this work, only returns 300 Google hits, only 46 minute long "film" David Shankbone 04:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• Note, I have notified the participants of the previous AfD, one of whom was a main contributor to the article. The nominator of that AfD is no longer with us, so I did not notify that editor. Earlier contributors appear to be inactive. - Crockspot 05:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as nom. This film only returns 300 Google hits. It was nominated for deletion before, but it was apparently seen as in bad faith because it was nominated by an SPA. Fails almost all guidelines for notability to have its own article. Most of the sources simply mention the film, but don't discuss it; such as a brief note that it is being shown at an (unnotable) film festival. A possible merge with Evan Coyne Maloney may be in order. Although the New York Sun, a newspaper with a circulation of 150,000 in a city of 18,000,000, is somewhat notable, the rest of the sources are all Bucknell University student groups who talk about it because there was a minor ruckus. The few notable sources dug up in the first AfD ring more of "even of a broken clock is right twice a day" than anything about a quirky little filmlet that has had an impact anywhere, with all of its 300 Google hits. The Chronicle "blurb" doesn't even mention the film, although presumably the paid version talks about it somewhere; and The Times article from 2005 is interesting, though in retrospect this clearly has proven to be an unnotable 46 minute film short. --David Shankbone 04:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Google return is actually 11,000 hits. In addition to the sources I added prior to this nom, there were several others I found from Hollywood Reporter, Guardian, Weekly Standard, and Opinion Journal. I'm sure if I broke a sweat, I could find many more. Clearly notable enough, and the article can probably be expanded. Last AfD was in May, why now all of a sudden? - Crockspot 05:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• Actually, unless musings about writing to Mormon friends qualify (found on only the third page of hits), there are quite a few people out there who use the phrase "brainwashing 101" that have nothing to do with the film, which is why I added the director's name, since the film isn't really discussed without mentioning his name. Your links mostly mention the film in passing, with it meriting one or two sentences. This makes it notable? --David Shankbone' 05:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• Notable enough. I think your search parameters were too restrictive. Searching with just Maloney increases the hit count to almost 1,600. - Crockspot 05:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• That's not true, it's actually less at 274. Crockspot, you are Googling and looking at the first page and that number, which doesn't factor our "repeats" or pages where there is simply a mention of the film on one website about 100 times, or so. So far, you haven't really shown how this is notable, and if anything, seem to be showing how it is unnotable. --David Shankbone 11:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• Hmmm, I get 1,590. - Crockspot 12:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, because as I explained, you only look at the first page. In reality, there are only 274 hits. You have to go to the last page of hits to see unique pages. Usually if you can reach a last page, the subject isn't particularly notable by this measure. --David Shankbone 12:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oh really?[1],[2] The unique results are only calculated on the first 1,000 hits, not over all hits. So the actual number of hits for this page is between 300 and 800. Fram 14:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• That was actually an education for me - I had no idea. So, there goes that. I did a strike through --David Shankbone 17:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• Either keep per Crockspot, or merge to either Evan Coyne Maloney or Indoctrinate U (Maloney's feature-length version of this documentary but with all newly shot footage). --Metropolitan90 05:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• I would support a merge with Evan Coyne Maloney or Indoctrinate U. --David Shankbone 05:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment The only part of WP:NF that seems relevant here is, "The film is widely distributed and has received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics.". I suggest the discussion focus on whether or not the film is "widely distributed", and whether or not it has been reveiwed by a "nationally known critics". No opinion myself. Mark Chovain 05:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - ample sources as per Crockspot - Fosnez 07:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Crockspot is right, it has enough sources. Fits into WP:N just fine. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 08:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - plenty of references from reliable and big name sources. Notable. Ben W Bell talk 12:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep This article cites a sufficient number of references to establish notability. I think there is a POV reason behind this AFD. --EAEB 14:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and Speedy close per WP:SNOW. Nothing has changed since May except that the film has gotten more publicity since then. And the context of the nominator's last few hundred edits put the nomination in a questionable light, and I request an admin warn about disruptive POV-pushing. THF 16:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

LOL - request away, although an admin is likely to WP:AGF, as they should. --David Shankbone 17:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• And I don't think this is a Snow issue, and the AfD has only been open for 12 hours. Let it run its full course. It's just annoying you; WP:COOL, THF, WP:COOL. Stop taking everything personally. Really: it's not all about you. --David Shankbone 17:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• I have to say that I had my doubts about this nomination, in terms of it being a WP:POINT violation related to other disputes that you are involved in currently. But that is unrelated to my reasons for supporting a keep, and therefore why I did not mention it initially. For example, on a biography related to this article, you admit on the talk page that the subject is indeed notable, yet you placed a notability tag on the article within a day of making that statement. Perhaps you have perfectly valid reasons for these actions, but those reasons are not readily apparent. - Crockspot 17:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I wonder why the speedy close was reverted? I see nothing improper about it. If you look at the first AfD, it was also closed speedy, and early. There are no delete votes save the nomination. Why waste everyone's time here? This is an obvious snowball, and no, not that kind of snowball. - Crockspot 18:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

In twelve hours we have a snowball, after you canvassed the original keepers? I don't think so. It's a barely notable 46 minute piece of propaganda, that has since been made into a feature length piece of propaganda that is notable. Delete or merge is merited. Casting doubt on my good faith only serves as a strawman, but I don't mind. Why the need to speedy close instead of allowing it to run its course? If it's a keeper, it's a keeper. No big thang. --David Shankbone 18:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't affect my psyche one way or the other. Bear in mind though that there was an early close of an AfD last week that was immediately reopened, but because of some technicality, all votes after the close and reopen were invalidated, and the AfD was forced closed. I can't say that I understand the exact reasons, but it might be worth looking into. - Crockspot 18:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

If you want to look into it, you are welcome to do so. Since a non-admin closed, and was immediately reverted, I don't think there is really much of an issue; if that was the case, any old editor could force a hand by just closing. Doesn't seem very wiki, does it? Nah... --David Shankbone 18:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I had to dig back a few hundred edits, it was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of inventions shown on American Inventor (second nomination), which was reopened again, so not sure what is going on there. - Crockspot 20:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't sound like this has anything to do with this AfD. --David Shankbone 20:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

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.