Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Firehose of falsehood


 * 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 speedy keep per WP:SNOW; and, arguably, because the nominator's comment applied to the article in its current state would be CSK no. 3. (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:17, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Firehose of falsehood

 * – ( View AfD View log )

A neologism that fails notability. The term "firehose of falsehood" was coined in an article published by the RAND Corporation, which was later used by a few non-experts in opinion pieces, which do not count as reliable sources except for the opinions of their authors. Otherwise, the RAND Corporation has not published any other articles using the term, it has not been picked up in academic sources or reported in news articles and has not entered public discourse. TFD (talk) 21:12, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:19, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  Renat  21:22, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions.  Renat  21:26, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

*Delete or redirect to Mass marketing. For the reasons stated in the nomination and WP:FORK. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:08, 8 October 2021 (UTC) Retracting !vote, due to sources listed below. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 05:39, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The article is not related to mass marketing. It is not a fork. soibangla (talk) 01:06, 9 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep - I come across this term relatively often, it seems. See Vice, Nieman Lab, Sydney Morning Herald, Mother Jones, Vox, Psychology Today. There are some sources I'm not sure about, like these two Indonesian journals: Wacana and Jurnal Transformative. And then there are the opinion columns and whatnot, which, granted, don't add a lot to notability: The Guardian, CNN, etc. I stopped looking after a few pages of gscholar and ghits returned enough to satisfy WP:GNG. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 22:29, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep: I count seven reliable sources that are news articles reporting the term. Seems to easily pass WP:GNG. Contrary to the nominators claim, the article's sources are evidence that the term has entered the public discourse. –– FormalDude   talk  05:19, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - per Rhododendrites' source findings. It seems that the term has been written about rather than just used to the point where it is (a) sufficiently notable and (b) a decent encyclopedia article can be written about it. firefly  ( t · c ) 12:18, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep The article’s subject is a broadly discussed phenomenon or technique in the field of disinformation and propaganda. If the name is not good, propose renaming. If the subject is dealt with elsewhere, propose merging. —Michael Z. 14:34, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per Rhododendrites. There are enough sources for this to be notable enough for an article here. -- Valjean (talk) 16:16, 9 October 2021 (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.