Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Counter Misinformation Team


 * 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 of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 01:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Counter Misinformation Team
Exceedingly minor, informal group of people at the State Department non-notable (only 102 Google hits, almost all of which are from left-wing bloggers); created by Striver as part of his ongoing campaign to make a POV argument on Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks. Aaron 17:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, lets do that, lets delete official State Department groups, only since i created it.... --Striver 18:08, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Do we need a page for the State Department HR Department? I'll bet it's larger than this. --Mmx1 18:50, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Can you tag some 9/11 conspiracy theories on the HR dept article? If you can figure out a way to do that we surely should have it ASAP. Weregerbil 19:04, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

So, where are the delete votes? Dont tell me you created a AFD just out of spite for me, but dont actualy want to vote delete? --Striver 19:50, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Personally, I am waiting for someone to come up with evidence that this team is notable. Is there any? So far the article seems to be just an excuse for listing out of context second hand quotes of some journalist playing devil's advocate on his political gossip column. Weregerbil 20:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete nn--MONGO 20:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge to some more appropriate State Dept-related article. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 21:08, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, per User:Morton devonshire. Careful what you wish for! More seriously, Orwellian agencies should quite rightly be written about — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 06:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * keep: Information control at such a high level definitely needs the eyes of the Wiki keeping vigil.  Ombudsman 21:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: And here I thought we were writing an encyclopedia. --Aaron 22:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * All the more reason for the Wiki to monitor the often clandestine media manipulation by government agencies dedicated to either disseminating information or countering disinformation. Remember the fake news bruhaha?  Almost by definition, an entity of this type, especially within the highest reaches of the US government, is noteworthy as an influence upon institutional memory, and is entirely relevant to the Wiki's fundamental mission.  Ombudsman 03:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Merge somewhere. It be best to merge to Office of International Information Programs, yet the article hasn't been created yet. Perhaps this is an excellent oppurtunity to create the article, and if some point in the future, if need be, this can be divided into its own article. At the moment, keep it at the Office of International Information Programs. Otherwise, merge into United States Department of State. Pepsidrinka 22:34, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep' and expand. SkeenaR 22:55, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per above comments --Striver 23:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand voluminously, and make sure you include every crack-pot, tin-foil, Elvis-has-just-been-sighted, anal-gazing, nutburger theory, because we wouldn't want Wikipedia to be taken seriously now, would we. Morton devonshire 04:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand: this isn't exactly an "informal" group, as shown at . Ardric47 05:27, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete NN --rogerd 03:58, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Ardric47 or merge per Pepsidrinka. Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:36, 27 February 2006 (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.