Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exposed: The Climate of Fear (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. --Core desat 04:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Exposed: The Climate of Fear
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This is a one-hour TV special which finished in last place in its time slot. Fails WP:N and WP:EPISODE, and is a coatrack for global warming skepticism to boot. Prior AfD closed as no consensus; since then, there has been no additional coverage by third-party reliable sources. This lacks any evidence of significant notability or impact, other than a couple of trivial one-time mentions in partisan sources at the time of its airing. MastCell Talk 23:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * delete as per nom, as last time William M. Connolley 08:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I do not disagree in substance, for now, with nom, but I think there are articles existing throughout WP that are far less notable topics than this which still passed the WP:N exam. I'm always concerned about consistency in the enforcement of rules. --Childhood&#39;s End 14:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: I understand your position - this is far from the worst article or least notable topic covered on Wikipedia. However, the unfortunate fact that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS doesn't really affect the decision to keep or delete this particular article, which should be based on notability criteria. MastCell Talk 16:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment This is what concerns me more and more with regard to such AfDs. Technically, yes, the fact that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS should not affect our decision, but that should be true only if policies are enforced with consistency (i.e. avoiding double-standards, blind to WP:ILIKEIT or WP:IDONTLIKEIT). I see that you also concur that there are worst articles than this one that are maintained throughout WP, and I would hate to see WP:N used again to delete an article that, for some reason, looks like a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT for some people. --Childhood&#39;s End 20:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You would "hate to see WP:N used to delete an article"? But that's the basis on which articles are supposed to be kept or deleted. I haven't seen anyone express an WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument thus far, so I'm not sure where that's coming from. I delete (and nominate) plenty of articles, so don't think this one has been singled out. And you're always welcome to help sweep up other non-notable articles, too. MastCell Talk 22:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * keep &mdash; Responding to the comment above: Keeping an article simply because there are examples of other articles that are less-notable but still have articles isn't a reason to keep an article. I don't know the link to the Wikipedia policy at this time, but I read it recently because it came up in the discussion for another article's discussion for deletion.  So, this article can't be kept for that reason.  However, I think that it would be valid to compare the notability of this article to typical (i.e.: above the bottom) articles about episodes.
 * I also think that the episode that this article documents should remain because it is an episode of a television series that receives international distribution, it is a significant departure from the normal format of episodes from this program, and it covers a currently-highly-debated topic.
 * Additionally, I have a personal policy: If it has not been at least six months since the last nomination for deletion, I will automatically vote against the deletion. This comes from an article that I was interested in being nominated for deletion, but failed.  It was nominated for deletion again less than a month later, which also failed.  It was then nominated again less than a month later, which is why I made this personal policy.  It also failed the third deletion, even without my vote, but I think that this is a good rule.  If not for my rule, I would have voted against the deletion as per my reasoning in the previous two nominations, as with this article.  But my rule will still apply if I think that the article should be deleted, I will vote against the deletion if it has been too soon.  I am currently holding up a vote for renaming an article (that I want renamed) because it has been less than six months since it has been renamed.
 * So, for good reason as well as my personal policy, I vote to keep this article. &mdash; Val42 16:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: If your main reason for arguing to keep the article is that it had a prior AfD a few months ago, I should mention that the AfD was closed as "no consensus", and therefore a repeat attempt to gauge consensus is reasonable. MastCell Talk 16:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment But the "no consensus" finding of the previous AfD was at best dubious. The first AfD was a clear Keep... --Childhood&#39;s End 20:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That's funny, I saw it as a pretty clear delete. Many of the "keep" !votes were along the lines of "it's notable because it was on TV". Even more relevant, a number of "keep" !votes were based on the idea that "it needs a bit more time", "keep for now", "keep and improve", etc. But you can't improve an article without sources. The fact that there's been no improvement, and no new useable sources, since the "no consensus" a few months ago is actually a very strong argument in favor of deletion. MastCell Talk 22:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: As I stated above, I have good reasons for keeping this article, though I won't repeat them because you can read them above. However, if this hadn't been the case, I would have voted against the delete because of my personal policy, created for reasons also stated above. &mdash; Val42 18:36, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Again, I am somewhat sympathetic in substance to your proposal. But the fact that there's been no improvement lately is hardly an argument (shows the article is accurate perhaps), and the fact that there's no new useable sources may just show that this is too soon to call again for a deletion. Give it plenty of time, then you'll have a better case for deletion imo. This is rushed. --Childhood&#39;s End 14:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * delete this episode had a brief "hour of fame" (albeith not one that could be seen in ratings), amongst the sceptics. I haven't seen it referenced since. So: delete per nom. --Kim D. Petersen 18:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * delete nonnnotable. Mukadderat 04:15, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * keep too soon. (SEWilco 03:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC))
 * It doesn't show notability and no one's edited it for 2 months. Too soon for what? MastCell Talk 03:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep for now See my reasons above. --Childhood&#39;s End 14:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, "keep for now" was the sentiment at the last AfD months ago. There's been no improvement, no new sources to incorporate, and no evidence of notability to turn up, so I'm not sure what keeping it "for now" will accomplish. MastCell Talk 18:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It will show what it did not have time to show now; i.e. that it is not notable. That no new sources to incorporate occured in the last weeks is not reliable evidence. But if this is still the case in 6 or 12 months from now, then I'll be the first to support an AfD. Right now, you risk deleting an article about a topic that already got some coverage, and that might or might not get some more later on. --Childhood&#39;s End 19:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The show aired in May. It generated a small amount of buzz at the time in a handful of blogs and partisan venues, which rapidly died away. It finished last in its time slot in ratings. That was 5 months ago. It is not notable, and the chance of something non-trivial coming along 5 months after an hourlong bottom-rated episode aired is negligible. I don't see this AfD as "rushed", but if anything, overdue. MastCell Talk 22:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * In the (unlikely) event that significant coverage of the episode pops up later, the article can be recreated. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd likely agree with you if this was the first Afd but it is not. Standard procedure would be to wait longer after the first AfD, and I dont see why you feel so urgently the need to have this article deleted now instead of in a few months. This brings me back to my first comment about how loosely WP:N can be enforced depending on the case. I will say no more. --Childhood&#39;s End 13:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but you're incorrect on the basics here, as well as what constitutes "standard procedure". The prior AfD was not closed as keep - it was closed as "no consensus". In such a setting, the "standard procedure" I'm familiar with is to wait a few months, give the article and issues time to sort themselves out, and then try again to achieve a consensus to delete or keep. There is absoluetly nothing "urgent" or "rushed" or "loosely enforced" about this, and your implications not only show a misunderstanding of basic deletion policy but also seem designed to cast doubt on my motivations as the nominator, neither of which is helpful here. MastCell Talk 18:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Just as a precision here, I did not meant to cast any doubt whatsoever about your motivations. No doubt this is good-faithed. What I said is since WP:N is a policy that is not enforced with consistency (you admitted yourself that there are clearer cases of non-notability throughout WP), and since over this, this article already survived an AfD not so long ago, I think that we ought to wait before a new AfD. WP:N is a blurred policy which can open the way to many subjective calls, and if only for appearances or transparency, cutting this article under WP:N should wait some more time. --Childhood&#39;s End 03:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * delete. not notable. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:32, 23 October 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.