Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Silent Minority


 * 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.  Sandstein  05:53, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Silent Minority

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Notability; No reliable sources documenting the film. The film clearly exists, and it seems as if it may be notable, but I've been unable to confirm that with sources. &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 20:05, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete as nom.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 01:00, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per comments below. Article has been expanded substantially. I'm still not comfortable with the quality of sources provided, some of which were printed only immediately surrounding the film's broadcast, and others being either questionable or mere mentions. However, I think it has a shot of improving, and would like to see it have an opportunity to.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 18:47, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - It is cited in scholarly books and journals as can be confirmed by a simple search on Google Scholar or Google Books. References are added to the article. Govynn (talk) 20:57, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete merely proving it exists doesn't establish notability. Significant coverage by reliable third party sources would do that. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:55, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete as nom. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:58, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep The hansard reference in very convincing. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:45, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment Veering towards Keep. It certainly need work, but there are signs of notability out there to pursue, although access to contemporary sources would be helpful. The controversy about the programme made into the British Parliament with questions in the House (Hansard extract) and if anyone has access to the Times website (or can tunnel through the paywall), it was mentioned in an article by Brian Rix on 2 June last. (The title of the article was "Britain is shamed by the cruelty at Winterbourne View"). The fact that this documentary is being discussed 30 years later (almost to the day), while of course connected to a recent Panorama documentary, is in itself a reason to expect that there are sources out there. It goes without saying of course that they would need to be added.  FlowerpotmaN &middot;(t) 01:45, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment I'd fully agree with you, if those sources can be found. I've been unable to track any down, however.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 03:20, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "Mentioned" in an article and being discussed because the topic came up wouldn't sway my !vote. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:39, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * One need only look to see that the article in Glasgow Herald is far more than a "mention", as it deals with the film and its controversy directly and in detail. Where there's one 1981 article about a controversial documentary, there are more . Just takes looking.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 00:48, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * And looking it was not that difficult to find Yorkshire Post,   Just sayin...  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 01:14, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep and continue improvements to the sourced and expanded article. As the documentary has indeed received critical commentary and discussion in reliable sources independent of the subject, it meets the requirements set in WP:NF. The unsourced new article that was first nominated has been expanded and sourced since that nomination.  We do not toss what can be so easily fixed simply because it might have started in bad shape. Deleting improvable content does not serve the project.  Actually improving something does. I would ask the nominator and delete !voters to now consider a withdrawal as his initial concerns have been addressed... with Kudos to User:Govynn and User:Flowerpotman.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 00:48, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment Amended my (not a) vote to Keep above, per improvements. Something else that seems to be true but needs sources is that it won a Royal Television Society Award in 1981. This needs sources; a lot of non-RS pages saying it is not enough; the RTS site is a bit weak when it comes to awards prior to the start of the World Wide Web but it does have has a list of winners. However.... they have goofed in the list (available via this link or this direct link to the pdf file in what looks to be a classic auto-complete blunder, and called it "Silent Majority".  An RTS award would be considered a major award. Looking for sources for that now.  FlowerpotmaN &middot;(t) 14:35, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep a nationally broadcast documentary that has received sufficient third party coverage, plus the award just mentioned above, it would seem. And I agree with Michael regarding the wisdom and value of nominating an article such as this for deletion when even the nominator observes that "it seems as if it may be notable" and the main difficulty is finding sources -- sources which seem to have been supplied rather easily by other editors. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:41, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment My having some vague suspicion that the topic may be notable is not any reason to keep an unsourced stub around, particularly when the only thing I can dredge up on the topic is a short and obscure mention in a QS. That said, it looks like the article has been expanded with sources substantially since its nomination, which is good. I'm dubious about the quality of those sources, but if the article continues to improve, I think it has a chance of eventually being higher quality. As such, I'm willing to amend my vote.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 18:44, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep as creator. As someone earlier kinda-sorta guessed this came into the spotlight again after a recent panorma documentry and it was clearly notable from unreliable sources - reliable sources are quite hard for me to find without access to Lexis etc, more than I thought when I started the article, but I see others have put a start to it. Egg Centric 16:28, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep: Utterly fantastic documentary, well worth watching for da lulz. 78.105.71.57 (talk) 17:12, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note—the above comment was made by a trolling IP which was blocked minutes later. ╟─TreasuryTag► fine not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale ─╢ 17:40, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Re IP - see also: User_talk:NawlinWiki Egg Centric 19:11, 19 June 2011 (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.