Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hide the Decline


 * 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. There is a majority (though only just) in favour of deletion. Several arguments on both sides were rather week or provided no real rationale- variations of WP:JNN and the exact opposite. At the end of the day, the evaluation of the sources provided by Atmoz appeared to be the strongest argument in favour of deletion and nobody provided a strong counter-argument to that evaluation   HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   15:47, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Hide the Decline

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

More of a procedural nomination. I declined to delete this as a G10 as the article is about a subject, a youtube video, that spoofs a secondary subject. As such it is not clearly an article that disparages its subject. Rather it is an article about a topic that itself disparages a subject. To provide an example of that distinction, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is antisemitic drivel, whose sole purpose is to attack a group, but that does not mean writing an article about that topic is an attack on the group. However, the tagger, who can well speak for him/herself, believes this is part of an Astroturfing campaign. In any event, I suppose the questions most relevant to be determined here are whether this should this be deleted because of BLP concerns, and whether the subject is notable in its own right. In that regard, though there are some sources in the article, WP:NTEMP / WP:EVENT might be of significance here.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:10, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Plenty of MSM sources and is a parody of a phrase from the climategate scandel mark nutley (talk) 06:46, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * delete - NN William M. Connolley (talk) 08:18, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * delete. Week sourcing, wrong subject. the article could be about the follow up and use of Manns "hide the decline" mail in various media and public discussions, the MFGW video could be mentioned among others. So far the actual entry is not much more than mudslingering without much relevant content. Polentario (talk) 09:37, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep It's notable, and I don't see any clear BLP violations, so it looks fine to me. Macai (talk) 10:18, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete When the notability of an article relies on being 6th on a weekly list of viral videos, one wonders why 1-5 don't have articles. Further, the frequent inclusion of blog-sourced nonsense to the article makes the cost-benefit analysis clear. Hipocrite (talk) 11:43, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Where is the significant depth of coverage required by WP:N? Is it in one source that treats the subject in depth or is it a large number of brief mentions that together show depth of coverage, or something in between? For an article subject that attacks someone (who falls well above marginal notability himself, but isn't famous), the sourcing should be airtight. Wikipedia has a number of articles that have very negative information on people who are notable but not very famous. It might be a good idea to change BLP policy to disallow articles like this, about subjects that may be marginally notable attacks (in this case suggesting, with a laugh, that a notable scientist is a liar). We should expect a lot more of these in the future. For now, I'm undecided on keep/delete. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 12:45, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Well john wp:n says, "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material, which fox news does, even describing what is in the video as does Rush Limbaugh so i think wp:n is covered here. mark nutley (talk) 13:08, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. Another terrible article from the usual suspect(s). Clearly not notable in any way. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:12, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Article is currently sourced to major, mainstream news organizations including CBS News, FOX News, Nature, New York Times, The Guardian, The Telegraph, and The Wall Street Journal, nor do I see any BLP violations. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:40, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I've asked the editor who raised the BLP concerns three times what specific article content is a BLP violation. Unfortunately, that editor has not provided any specific problems.  So, right now, I'm not aware of any BLP issues. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:03, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment William M. Connolley has posted on his blog with regards to this AFD, is this allowable? mark nutley (talk) 14:04, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Looking through the sources:
 * NYTimes Blog: mentioned in passing. everything that is in this piece is quoted in the article. (Hard to make a fair use argument for that.)
 * Guardian: simply a list of their top-10 viral videos. The series shows that it offers no notability.
 * NYTimes: the video is only mentioned in passing. article quotes entire paragraph, of which only one phrase of the first sentence is applicable to this article
 * Nature News Blog: reports that Fox reported on the video. That's secondhand don't give a crap.
 * CBC News: Says there's a YouTube video spoofing the phrase. Entire bit on the video is quoted in the article.(Hard to make a fair use argument for that.)
 * Some press release: Press releases are not reliable source, no matter who regurgitates them.
 * WSJ op-ed: mentioned in 2 sentences, the entirety is quoted in the article.(Hard to make a fair use argument for that.)
 * Fox: not a reliable source. They've admitted they're an entertainment source, not a news source.
 * More Fox: but this time an opinion. Even less reliable, if that's possible.
 * Rushlimbaugh.com: uh huh. Whoever thinks that is a reliable source that an encyclopedia should cite should be put out of their misery.


 * Therefore, delete as failing WP:WEB -Atmoz (talk) 14:07, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * [Added at 15:59, 27 June 2010 (UTC)] Video appears to not be online anymore. Transcript added from here -Atmoz (talk) 15:59, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Just for the record, the video is still being hosted online by nocapandtrade.com. JakeInJoisey (talk) 23:36, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Makin' up data the old hard way Fudgin the numbers day by day Hiding the snow and the cold and a downward line Hide the decline (hide the decline)

Michael Mann thinks he so smart totally inventing the hockey stick chart Hiding the snow and the cold and a downward line Hide the decline (hide the decline) Hide the decline (hide the decline)

Oh Climategate I think you have sealed your fate I hope you do a lot of time, cuz what you did was such a crime Hide the decline (hide the decline) Hide the decline (hide the decline)

The tree ring data was very thin you shoulda chopped more trees instead of hugging them. Hiding the snow and the cold and a downward line Hide the decline (hide the decline)

Oh Climategate I think you have sealed your fate Well you know its a crime and hope you do a lot of time Hide the decline (hide the decline) Hide the decline (hide the decline)


 * FOX News is routinely found to be a reliable source at the Reliable sources noticeboard. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:20, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * "An increasing number of viewers are relying on Fox News for both news and opinion," Fox News Senior VP Michael Clemente said in the statement, "and the average news consumer can certainly distinguish between the A-section of the newspaper and the editorial page, which is what our programming represents."
 * Seems rather clear doesn't it? -Atmoz (talk) 14:30, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No, actually you just confused me. I'm not sure what your last comment is trying to say.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:03, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * our programming refers to commentators. The fact that newspapers have editorial pages and publish columnists is the equivalent of having commentators like Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity with their own programs on Fox. Not a good argument, Atmoz. Fox News has a news department separate from the commentary programming. Your WP:WEB argument looks interesting, but the way that guideline is written makes it look like commentary is an acceptable source for notability. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:03, 27 June 2010 (UTC) revised


 * Comment I'm concerned that this article may be the victim of off-Wiki campaigning. How are we supposed to handle this situation? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:24, 27 June 2010 (UTC
 * Done. -Atmoz (talk) 14:30, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Question - has the video actually been deleted from YouTube, as William says here? Guettarda (talk) 15:18, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * What difference would that make even if it is true? The topic is still notable and this would be just another fact establishing that notability.  If it is true, then this point should be mentioned in the article as well assuming reliable sources discussing that point can be found.  --Rush&#39;s Algore (talk) 16:56, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Just for the record, the video is still being hosted online by nocapandtrade.com. JakeInJoisey (talk) 23:31, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If it was taken down by the people who uploaded it, that's a useful data point. If it is still mirrored by some unknown website, that's not terribly useful information. It is the internet, after all. But the actions of the original uploaders - that's interesting, if not conclusive. Guettarda (talk) 00:15, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It was deleted by YouTube for violating its terms of use. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:29, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete I am convinced by those above, especially Atmoz, that the sourcing for this does not meet our notability standards as, of those sources which can be said to be reliable, this does not meet "significant treatment." There are also BLP concerns here, and I believe when such are present, and notability is marginal, deletion is the right choice. As I also mentioned in the nomination, this appears to be a brief flurry of news coverage, not translating to lasting significance.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:48, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Margin notability at best, mostly blog-sourced video which is apparently no longer available on YouTube. It makes very seriously negative accusations against a living person (claims which have been shown to be false). Combining the marginal notability, BLP problems and poor sourcing, I don't see how this topic is worthy of an encyclopaedia article. So - delete. Guettarda (talk) 16:10, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - This is obviously political satire similar to that of The Gore Effect which was recently closed as keep. The sources seem more that adequate to establish notability of the topic.  If there is evidence that this is part of an astroturf campaign the appropriate reliable sources should be gathered and a section discussing that added to the article.  This only adds to the notability of the topic, IMHO, and we would be doing our readers a disservice by not making that connection known to anyone who comes here to learn more about the video in question.  I believe that the nominator of this AfD makes a good and proper argument that this article is about the video (as opposed to the subject of the video) and as such it is not an attack page.  --Rush&#39;s Algore (talk) 16:34, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. Thank your for agreeing with me, but there has been analysis provided above that there are only a few sources that are reliable, and of those, they do not "address the subject directly in detail." You state that the sourcing seems "more than adequate" to you. Does this mean you think they address the subject directly in detail (the objective standard), or just that you feel this way? By the way, I cannot help but note that your username gives a strong impression that you are here based on ideology.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:01, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment The fox news ref certainly does go into detail, btw in the afd stats you appear to have voted delete twice? mark nutley (talk) 17:08, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It likely counts the act of nomination as a delete "vote," but if you read my nomination you will see I did not fall either way.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:18, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Your nomination was more than fair, sorry if you think i meant otherwise that was not my intent mark nutley (talk) 17:23, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * @Fuhghettaboutit : I believe that my argument was a policy based one and not an ideological one. As regards objective vs. subjective criteria, the sources objectively make a direct mention of the video by name.  It is my subjective opinion that the sources discuss the subject in sufficient detail to justify the uses to which they have been put: i.e. noting the opinions of specific individuals as regards the video in question.  --Rush&#39;s Algore (talk) 19:00, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * There are differences between this subject (HTD) and The Gore Effect (TGE): (1) TGE did not allege wrongdoing on the part of Gore; HTD alleges serious wrongdoing by Mann; (2) Gore is very famous and TGE puts no significant dent in his reputation; Mann is notable but not famous and stands to be considerably hurt by the subject; (3) and hurt because Wikipedia takes the passing notoriety of the video and encases it in a museum-quality display case on our website, actually creating more harm (TGE, in contrast, has endured for years); (4) I know of no one credible who puts any credence in the allegations brought up by the video. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:23, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Possibly true, however I am skeptical of the notion that this piece of political satire could have any meaningful impact on Mann himself. It is the fact that these types of political pieces are gaining substantial notoriety which makes them notable enough to have their own articles.  Certainly we shouldn't create an article for every Michel Mann joke out there (and I've heard quite a few) but once they have risen to the level of gaining mention in multiple mainstream sources then I believe the notability threshold has been reached.  Such is the case with both this video and TGE.  --Rush&#39;s Algore (talk) 19:10, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Question Why are these numbers wrong? It says that there are only 2 keep votes, but I count four so far (me, MN, Macai, Rush's Algore). A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:30, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Bots are stupid. There are missing delete !votes too. For a more detailed answer, you'll need to ask User:Betacommand. -Atmoz (talk) 19:52, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Query - Several comments have made note that, in order to be considered RS for content, sources must address the subject "in detail". Can someone suggest an objective standard(s?) that might be applied to making a determination that the Wikipedia "in detail" requirement has been satisfied? JakeInJoisey (talk) 18:39, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Not really, no. Otherwise a bot could determine if an article met the notability requirements and there would be no purpose to have AfD. (Other than for The Usual Suspects to continue arguing about the same crap over and over and over and... ) Also, general questions and comments should not be asked here. They should be directed to Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion or Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Hide the Decline, whichever is more appropriate. (This isn't just directed at the immediately preceding comment.)-Atmoz (talk) 19:52, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong delete. Is this an encyclopedia or a mirror of YouTube? Itsmejudith (talk) 20:59, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Apparently some people think it's a mirror of Conservapedia. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:11, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If there are specific POV issues with the article, then you should tell us what they are, so we can fix them. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:19, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Not a POV thing. No significant coverage. We have to draw the line somewhere and exclude total trivia. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:43, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Query - I do not believe that the sourcing thus far provided rises to satisfy the following WP:NTEMP guideline related to demonstrating "significant coverage"...
 * Even a large number of news reports that provide no critical analysis of the event is not considered significant coverage.
 * I would be interested in comments on the question of whether the threshold for WP:NTEMP "significant coverage" has been met. JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:06, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. —JonathanDP81 (Talk | contribs) 17:53, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: The more accurate content on Wikipedia the better. I have not checked the sourcing myself, but anything mentioned in so many reliable sources merits at article, assuming that an editor is willing to create it. David.Kane (talk) 12:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep because it meets the general notability guideline. I came here expecting to !vote to delete, but there is real notability here. Of course the video itself is an exercise in gleeful ignorance, but correctness or worth has never been a criteria for notability. More importantly, the reaction of its targets (Mann threatening to sue etc) was interesting and important enough to warrant significant press coverage, as the article already demonstrates. I understand why many will want this deleted, but I believe that based on policy, it deserves to live on. Thparkth (talk) 20:12, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as a WP:ONEEVENT and per WP:RECENTISM. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:27, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:ONEEVENT is not relevant here because it is a guideline specifically addressing the notability of people; this is not an article about a person. WP:RECENTISM carries little weight since it is merely an essay; nevertheless it offers no guidance as to when an article should be deleted. Thparkth (talk) 01:45, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, but see WP:NTEMP / WP:EVENT from my nom, which are in the same vein, not limited to people, and not essays.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:54, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that these are the key guidelines - WP:EVENT in particular. I'd argue that it's too soon to judge whether this video will have any lasting historical significance. I suspect that it won't, and in a year's time it might be an obvious candidate for deletion on those grounds - but not yet IMHO. Thparkth (talk) 02:50, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Well here's where I think the rub is. Normally we default to keep when there is no consensus, with good arguments on both sides of an issue. But when there's BLP concerns involved, we should default to deletion in such cases. Both of these sections are a bit frustrating in that they describe the issue, but give little guidance on how to apply it. You take the path of "since we don't know, and can't know now, we should wait until we know." I'm not sure how I'd feel about this in another situation, but here, with BLP involved, since we don't know, we should delete now and recreate later.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:29, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * What specific BLP violations do you believe are in the article? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:52, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * None. There are no BLP violations that I see in the article. That is why I declined the G10 and have continued to disagree with the tagger on whether it's an "attack page." I said BLP issues are involved. Here, it's that the parody is of a living person, and our hosting of the article on that parody, could affect that living person. That is a BLP issue. Of course, the position of climate deniers (or whatever they're called) is so asinine and bankrupt that I have a hard time imaging Mann not laughing this off, caring much, or it really affecting him.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:12, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete for being a temporary event - the video got a "cease and desist" letter, and got pulled from YouTube. It did do a short upturn in media - and then it died down (viral video stats). There are a couple of "clones"/derivatives but none have significant mentions. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:49, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Cites are weak, as per Atmoz, although I wouldn't discount Fox simply on the basis it is Fox.  Notability established mostly in the "Reception" section of article, which itself seems an overstatement. Half the sources mention the video in passing only, they are not appraising the video itself in the manner of a film or music critic.  Otherwise, the fact it used to have 500,000 views on Youtube isn't reason enough for it having an article here.  Particularly when it is no longer available and has left no notable legacy behind.  The article content also has a flavour of WP:COATRACK to it.  -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 16:24, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable per substantial coverage in reliable sources. Freakshownerd (talk) 19:44, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Not sufficiently notable. Reaching number six in a weekly viral video chart and cracking 500,000 hits is a pretty low standard, considering the fact that the top viral videos get over 100 million hits. StuartH (talk) 02:21, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * And especially considering that the video itself was deleted by YouTube for violating its terms of use. Literally a one-week wonder. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:59, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Nah, it's still available. I was watching it just last week.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:57, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete lacks multiple, independent, significant coverage hence fails WP:NOTE. Verbal chat  22:04, 1 July 2010 (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.