Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plandemic


 * 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 keep. WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Paradox  society  18:36, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Plandemic

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This appears to be a trailer for an (as yet) unproduced film. One whose notoriety is due to recentism. I thus think this may violate wp:notnews and probably wp:crystal. Slatersteven (talk) 15:46, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep (as substantial author) primarily because the level of coverage demands an in-depth analysis of this bollocks which is WP:UNDUE in the context of the WP:BLP on Mikovits, and in any case does not only involve her (though, to be fair, it is almost entirely her at this point, since we have no other content from the purported film). I'd rather delete the BLP, but that also has legs of its own due to a history of quite public anti-vax activism. Guy (help!) 15:50, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge to Judy Mikovits - the film is utter bilge, of course, but it has achieved enough significant coverage to be included in the encyclopedia, either as a standalone article or a component of the biographical article. Neutralitytalk 15:53, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't know. I hate Wikipedia to be on the cutting edge and this is the cutting edge. On the other hand, I think you'll have a hard time arguing that this truly is a case of WP:TOOSOON given the mammoth coverage that this thing is getting. jps (talk) 15:59, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep It makes a change that a reasonably balanced article has been produced on an anti-vax subject ahead of the anti-vaxxers themselves creating a POV interpretation of it. -Roxy the effin dog . wooF 16:02, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Leaning keep - it's currently vaporware (so this is an entirely reasonable AFD), but it appears to be notable vaporware. Also a useful article for dealing with misinformation - I've already had well-meaning friends emailing about this shocking expose video that's only got BitChute left as a host because YouTube is in league with the forces of evil, etc. A merge into Judy Mikovits would also be fine - David Gerard (talk) 16:10, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , yes - is clearly on the side of the angels here. My problem is that this Mikovits is not a BLP1E candidate, but this amount of content (which seems to me to be proportionate given the amount of real-world commentary right now) would be excessive in that article. This is a - whatever the equivalent of BLP1E is for crank videos - "Videos that are notable for only one crank" - WP:V1C? - anyway, that. Guy (help!) 16:21, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * oh totally - David Gerard (talk) 16:46, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Reluctant keep is receiving media coverage (unfortunately) and agree with Guy merging with Judy Mikovits would be WP:UNDUE Glen 16:15, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep It's getting a lot of coverage right now. We can always revisit in a few months. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 16:16, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:NOTTEMPORARY. Whether or not to keep it as a standalone article can be addressed through regular editorial processes as the situation develops. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:25, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. Bollocks, but notable bollocks. Alexbrn (talk) 16:25, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per Alexbrn and Glen. Unfortunately, it being stupid and false doesn't mean it's not notable. Naypta ☺ &#124; ✉ talk page &#124; 16:35, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep, yup, piling-on here, but it can't be stated strongly enough that this is notable conspiracy crackpottery. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:58, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. Not only is this notable now, there is every reason to believe this will remain notable for a long time to come because it was released in the wake of YouTube announcing their new policy of taking down content which does not comply with WHO information. Someone clearly saw this as an opportunity to gain maximum publicity and it's worked. The media surrounding this is secondary sources, things like Decider.com, not just Facebook and YouTube. It's way beyond primary. It's not reasonable to merge with the PhD, as she won't be the only subject of the film, according to RS. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 17:05, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets the standard of The general notability guideline with substantial secondary coverage by multiple reliable sources.. Tutelary (talk) 17:11, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep sufficient independent coverage from independent reliable sources cited in the article itself. I sympathize with the nominators sentiments, but they are no reason to delete. Kleuske (talk) 17:18, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep snow falling. Subject of widespread coverage that included Washington Post today and lots more. Maybe just another Youtube controversy movie, but clearly meets WP:GNG. Someone should snowclose this. As noted above it is also encyclopedic as a notable example of youtube/facebook censorship during the COVID pandemic and useful to cross link articles. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:56, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:08, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:08, 8 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep it was mentioned in the Washington Post, therefore it must be notable by the undeniable logic of Wikipedia's policies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eternal Father (talk • contribs) 18:12, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: Washington Post coverage means that this is at least immediately notable. Readers will be looking for more information about this, and we should provide it. — Toughpigs (talk) 18:24, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: There is coverage in the Washington Post, CNBC, Politico. Other sources can be added. There is coverage by Politifact, and Chicago Tribune. MonsieurD (talk) 18:32, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Looks like a snow keep, I myself doubt this will have any long term notability, but the community has spoken.Slatersteven (talk) 18:28, 8 May 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.