Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hoaxed


 * 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. Sources adduced shown not to meet RS. Spartaz Humbug! 22:49, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Hoaxed

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Barely-modified copy/paste of Draft:Hoaxed (2019 Film), which was declined. As that draft indicates, the article still lacks reliable sources and is not a neutral summary of the WP:FRINGE topic. Further, the article is overly promotional and uses editorializing language to puff-up what little independent significance the film has. Grayfell (talk) 05:36, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Grayfell (talk) 05:36, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Grayfell (talk) 05:36, 19 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete - Merely being a bestseller as a commercial product doesn't denote notability in the encyclopedic context. This obscure release doesn't appear to merit its own article. I agree. I'd like to add that it's kind of horrifying as well to see a piece of such absolutist hard-line extremism being presented in such a supportive manner. It's like going to the page 'Osama Bin Laden' and finding it beginning The late Osama Bin Laden was a heroic warrior against the crusading empire of global capitalism on behalf of people of faith or something. One wonders whether or not the film-makers consider the fact that the Holocaust happened to be "fake news". CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:03, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete -- an obvious attempt at promotion, while the available sources are minimal and weak, well short of the standard of notability for films. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:19, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep I've watched it myself and it's rather fascinated--does the nom work for CNN? Jokes aside, the peacocky language and the like are obvious problems not to be solved by AfD. A simple clean-up would suffice... The current delete campers seem to be letting emotion, rather than  policy, do the talking with their flimflam analogies to Osama and sweeping, false assertions on the reliable sources that do exist. Give me a bit and I will rework the article, even if AfD really shouldn't be cleanup Kingoflettuce (talk) 17:17, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * How "fascinated" you were by the film is also "letting emotion, rather than policy, do the talking". Insinuating that other editors are less rational than you is neither persuasive, not appropriate. Notability isn't based on individual editors' confidence in the existence of hypothetical sources, it is based on genuinely reliable, interdependent sources. The sources you have added so far have not changed my view of the film's notability due to their low quality. Grayfell (talk) 21:04, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Keep and continue improving the article - If there are any concerns about neutrality, anyone is welcome to re-word any parts of the article, which sort of the whole point of Wikipedia. Same for the sources; if you feel that a source is not reliable, feel to remove it. Official & Primary sources can still used solely for basic facts, however. This film was not released in movie theaters, so whatever little commercial success it does have is significant, particularly for a crowd-funded Indie Documentary. While commercial success doesn't guarantee notability, there are enough critical pieces on the film for it to qualify as notable, per the notability standards for films on Wikipedia. Don't demolish the house while it's still being built Eternal Father (talk) 22:04, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * As the late William Goldman once said, "The trouble with washing garbage is that when you're done, it's still garbage." --Calton &#124; Talk 00:32, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Exactly. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:01, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , especially when the person advocating the washing is solely dedicated to strewing garbage, as is the case here. Guy (help!) 07:53, 24 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete. Non-notable propaganda piece, whose sources for its alleged notability are basically unreliable propaganda outlets themselves. --Calton &#124; Talk 00:32, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * In-depth reviews in the American Thinker, Washington Examiner—sure, it might not be your New York Times or CNN, but they nonetheless show significant third-party coverage that would satisfy WP:NF. Kingoflettuce (talk) 04:18, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, much of the nom's reasoning hinges on the state of the article at the time of nomination & its "promotional" and "editorializing" tone. These are not good reasons for deletion—there have only been superficial, assertive attempts at assessing the state of sources that exist within and beyond the article. Kingoflettuce (talk) 04:29, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , Washington Examiner is not a reliable source. American Thinker is basically a right wing blog. What do actual film reviewers, rather than right-wing hacks, say? The answer, as far as I can tell, is: nothing. Guy (help!) 07:50, 24 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete. I have looked for substantive mainstream and reality-based commentary on this film, and cannot find any, so its non-inclusion is not just down to bias on the part of the author, who is basically a WP:SPA dedicated to promoting Mike Cernovich. IMDB shows zero professional reviews. I can't even find coverage of the removal from Amazon, outside of Breitbart. Guy (help!) 07:49, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep It passes GNG unless you have a certain viewpoint and start claiming that none of the sources are reliable.  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 23:02, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , the "certain viewpoint" being, in this case, the Wikipedia consensus on source reliability. Guy (help!) 15:29, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:NFILM defers to the WP:GNG for most subjects, and the WP:NFO would help it either. The sources currently used in the article are passing references in reliable sources; substantial coverage in unreliable sources (including those that have previously been discussed on WP:RSN); and primary sources. I can't find any substantial coverage in a reliable source, which the GNG requires multiple examples of. Ralbegen (talk) 23:26, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and . The in-depth coverage is in unreliable sources; reliable sources only give passing mentions, which is not enough for a GNG pass. Girth Summit  (blether)  14:35, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - obvious, if light, coverage in secondary sources including 2 published books on right-wing media and the Associated Press, but in particular meets WP:NFILM#2 - "significant involvement (i.e., one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of his/her career" - and a reasonable split of content from the Mike Cernovich article. Certainly a lot more about this topic than many other film stubs we have. -- Netoholic @ 20:08, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The AP source is a routine listing. The Routledge source is a passing mention. Routine listings and passing mentions are not sufficient for notability. That this is a major part of Cernovich's career would still need to be demonstrated by reliable, independent sources. As for other film stubs, you are correct, but that's whataboutism. It's easy to find bad articles, but this discussion is about this article, not other articles. Grayfell (talk) 22:56, 26 April 2020 (UTC)


 * DELETE - Thanks to for information. I searched for sources before reading the Wikipedia article as it is. Here are the potentially useful sources I have found:
 * Daily Wire - article about it being canceled
 * The Post Millennial - article about it being canceled
 * - article about it being canceled
 * Additionally, I found this on the wikipedia article, and it seems fine: Human Events - article about the movie
 * I think that these constitute enough independent, reliable secondary sources that significantly cover the subject such that it is notable according to WP:NFILM (which I would prefer over the WP:GNG, but I think it passes those too).
 * I do think the article had WP:UNDUE weight, but I trimmed it down. As the article stands now, I think we should keep it. Ikjbagl (talk) 01:52, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I also do have concerns about WP:NPOV with respect to who created the page, and who has edited it since. Ikjbagl (talk) 01:55, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * These sources are not reliable, so they not useful. Since we cannot cite them for factual claims, we cannot use them to establish notability. Consensus on the Daily Wire is listed at WP:RSP, while the Post Millennial is somewhat more obscure, but has a similar poor reputation.
 * The "ABC News" link is not affiliated with ABC News, it's a fake news site, which was why it was previously removed by CoffeeWithMarkets. I have redacted the link and again removed it from the article, since there is is no purpose to linking to hoax sites in a discussion like this, and it will cause future inconvenience if the site is blacklisted. Grayfell (talk) 03:27, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you, that changes my opinion. Ikjbagl (talk) 04:14, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Just because it's not "reliable" per RS doesn't mean it's not _useful_, whereas notability is more than establishing "factual" claims especially in this context. Kingoflettuce (talk) 05:03, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * See WP:Perennial sources for further guidance which does NOT discredit the use of sources as Washington Examiner (seems like Grayfell is conveniently lumping obvious fake news sites like "ABC News 14" with the Examiner, Human Events, etc.) Kingoflettuce (talk) 05:08, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I already linked that page. As that page explains in the first sentence, it is non-exhaustive. It should never be assumed to be exhaustive, because attempting to cataloging all possible sources is not a productive use of anyone's time. All sources should be judged in context.
 * As for Human Events, that site's newer material is also listed by RSN as deprecated, and the Examiner needs to be handled with caution and attribution. I hope it is obvious that sources can be bad in multiple different ways, and it's possible for a source to be unhelpful even without being a blatant hoax. Grayfell (talk) 18:31, 27 April 2020 (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.