Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TV Fakery


 * 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. Sr13 02:15, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

TV Fakery

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Neologism, there's never going to be proper refs for this, it's a magnet for POV and synthesis RxS 02:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

KEEP this term is what everyone refers to when talking about the conundrum that is best explained in the September Clues videos 202.180.71.218 03:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC) — User:202.180.71.218 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * KEEP It's obvious that there are plenty of references to TV Fakery over the last 20 years to prove that the term is not a neologism. The page is presented from a neutral point of view and it doesn't fit well into any other wikipedia category. 70.231.236.128 00:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC) — User:70.231.236.128 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Every section and statement in this article is properly sourced and presented from a neutral point of view. The article covers an important and growing problem as is indicated by the variety of sources cited, from US Government agencies such as the National Security Council to top universities such as MIT, the problem of TV Fakery is exacerbated by new technology.  The examples cited range from conventional forgery at NBC to the new TV Fakery made possible through computers as evidenced by the tornado photo that was shown on multiple networks in New Zealand.  It is a serious subject not covered elsewhere in Wikipedia, where there are longstanding articles on topics such as Art Forgery and Propaganda it deserves a page of its own.  Like Identity Theft and Spam TV Fakery is a relatively new but important problem of the digital age.  The poster who tried to vandalize this page seems to be an active poster on 9/11 conspiracy theories and his neutrality is in doubt. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.231.236.128 (talk • contribs).
 * But which reliable sources are discussing THE PHRASE "TV Fakery"? The article appears to be about the phrase, not the tendency. I don't see any reliable sources whatsoever discussing THE PHRASE "TV Fakery". This is a neologism - possibly a protologism, since it doesn't seem to be a commonly used phrase. -- Charlene 03:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The term "TV Fakery" generates over 34 thousand hits on Google, and it is the preferred term for the topic under discussion.

It's a serious subject for an encyclopedia, and it's not adequately covered elsewhere in Wikipedia. The term is in use on both sides of the Atlantic, it's clear and descriptive. The article itself is about the phenomenon of TV Fakery, which does not properly belong to other pages of Wikipedia yet is an important topic that deserves a page of its own. The Chicago Sun times article used the term TV Fakery properly 20 years ago proving that it's not a neologism. Bsregistration 04:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC) — User:Bsregistration (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Ramsay Busted for More TV Fakery -- New York Magazine
 * TV fakery revealed in show on opening of Titanic's safe -- Chicago Sun Times
 * Double take -- Guardian UK    "In an age of TV fakery, when even the real people are suspect..."


 * There's no "conspiracy theory" or soapbox issues on the page, nor is there any mention of TV Fakery on the locked 9/11 conpspiracy theory page. The Soapbox comments and multiple posts from Dennis The Tiger are simply reflective of his own views and are not substantiated by anything on the page at all.


 * Weak delete, I can see the phrase being citeable (it is not properly attributed now). This article has serious WP:SOAPBOX and WP:POV issues right now, though. Certainly there are times when there are charges of fakery that are not substantiated. (Ha. "Fakery" is getting flagged by my spellchecker.) Worse, there are times when it is forever disputed. So the article will need a much more rigorous and serious restructuring before it shows this topic in a policy-compliant light. --Dhartung | Talk 04:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * KEEP: Examples are substantiated The controversies section was taken out, and just as there may be disputes in Art Forgery that's no reason that it's not a valid topic. It's a large and growing problem, and it's currently from a neutral point of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bsregistration (talk • contribs)  — Bsregistration (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete per WP:NEO - "a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term—not books and papers that use the term.". So far, none of the links here or on the article page provide these sources Corpx 05:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * keep The concept is a valid one even if the term is a neoligism. Just move the page to a new title. How about "Faked photography used in TV" or something similar? Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 07:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Not sure how this can be an article with it's current information. I searched for more evidence but found nothing that would be construed as based on facts.--MONGO 08:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and merge I can't find an article on wikipedia that details photographic forgery, so this seems to be under-documented, oddly enough. The title "TV fakery" is bad as it's probably a neologism, "photo and video forgery" would be better. EverGreg 20:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep and Expand TV Fakery is real term of use. It has over 41,400 google hits including:

TV fakery is alluded to in a Family Guy episode (plane crash).

Another tv fakery is the titanic safe opening. http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-3853272.html

TV fakery - in this case, I think TV Fakery is referring to TV's perpetual smurfy portrayal of real life: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0077854/

Here is a case just published where they faked how many fish were caught on a tv show - they don't use the term tv fakery in the first article http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article2076254.ece

But same story here and they use the term tv fakery: http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,,2127536,00.html

TV Fakery used here (1999 article): http://archive.thisisyork.co.uk/1999/2/12/324772.html

More tv fakery but the term isn't used: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6433589.stm

Again - term tv fakery used here (2000): http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4196/is_20000117/ai_n10578465

Again - term tv fakery used here (2002) last paragraph: http://www.dvdmg.com/annanicoleseason1.shtml

And a special dedicated to tv fakery - BBC2 - 1998: http://ftvdb.bfi.org.uk/sift/series/30448

A similar but slightly different phenomenom from tv fakery - VNR - Video News Releases - videos made by corporations and given to news media and run as news without editing or censoring. Much is apparently propaganda: http://www.prwatch.org/node/3518 http://www.globalissues.org/HumanRights/Media/Manipulation.asp — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pba11 (talk • contribs) — Pba11 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Please Keep: TV Fakery is a topic of growing interest. See http://livevideo.com/socialservice — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.20.18.72 (talk) — User:68.20.18.72 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Delete - not a likely search term or a neutral article title; we already have Photomanipulation which redirects to Photo editing. Any sourced content belongs there. Tom Harrison Talk 22:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * KEEP and EXPAND Photomanipulation is a generic topic that covers things like using photoshop. TV Fakery is a separate topic and involves manipulation of the public through broadcast media.  It's very much its own topic and it doesn't fit well into any other area on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.231.236.128 (talk)  — User:70.231.236.128 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

brought to light. Lying with Pixels. http://www.technologyreview.com/read_article.aspx?id=12115 TV is the biggest propaganda tool. Keep this and keep it going! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atwitsend (talk • contribs) — Atwitsend (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep, the media loves us to believe that TV is real. Image Manipulation Ethics and Congressman DeWine http://www.ethicsscoreboard.com/list/dewine.html TV faked images every day and people believe they are real. the illusion must be


 * Wow! Conspiracy theory! I'm going to have to tell the Freemasons about this person! -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 00:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * KEEP: this is a very important topic, and can be presented from a neutral point of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.161.250.21 (talk) — User:216.161.250.21 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * KEEP: This is an important topic and will become increasingly relevant as the power of video capture, editing, and doctoring becomes increasingly in the hands of more people around the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.40.10.248 (talk)  — User:196.40.10.248 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Delete. Maybe redirect to photomanipulation.  The biggest problem I have is that the article feels like it's trying to push an agenda itself (in violation of WP:SOAP) and suggest that there is a conspiracy and/or another agenda.  It tries, but it also fails, to show notability outside of the term "TV fakery" being a snide comment in many OpEd pieces.  -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 00:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Definitely KEEP. This is most important in ascertaining the true nature of what happened on "9/11". It's very obvious from the TV archives that a great deal of TV footage is fake. http://www.archive.org/details/sept_11_tv_archive, www.livevideo.com/socialservice — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.45.76.222 (talk • contribs)
 * We are not a soapbox, as per my vote above. Try again. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 02:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator's reasoning, and a swarm of IPs and SPAs crawling out of the woodwork to support keeping an article is rarely a good sign. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  14:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete and merge sourced material into Urban legends. Bearian 01:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:GFDL says you can't do that. I think you mean merge and redirect. Zetawoof(&zeta;) 02:43, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * KeepNothing on the page is an urban legend and it's all properly sourced. It's a serious topic and mere slurs about "urban legends" shouldn't carry weight hereBsregistration 07:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)  This is the user's second "vote" on this page - First Vote


 * Comment - User:Bsregistration has now cast two keep !votes. -- Dennis The Tiger  (Rawr and stuff) 00:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * KEEP: This information is sourced and neutral. TV fakery will be more prevalent in the future with continued advancements with video editing abilities.  Also, the votes for deletion seem to be for political reasons. Babya 07:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC) — Babya (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Really? What kind of political reasons do you see? -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 23:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I see at least five entries from Dennis The Tiger, it's not a popularity contest and I don't see any substance to your arguments. I agree with the poster who thinks you have some kind of agenda. 70.132.1.227 04:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * ...this is a non-sequitur. -- Dennis The Tiger  (Rawr and stuff) 04:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep The reference to a TV station being tricked into broadcasting a video of a New Zealand tornado is proof enough that this is notable. As others point out, the improvement in photographic manipulation means that this is something that those "in charge" need to be aware of and on guard for.  Mandsford 00:20, 22 July 2007 (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.