Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/White pixelization


 * 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. L Faraone  00:15, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

White pixelization

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails general notability guideline: doesn't have significant coverage in reliable sources. Two sources are an editor-in-chief's chat with readers, one is an article where the subject is mentioned in passing. Appears to be a WP:COATRACK for spreading myths about Swedish immigration politics. Sjö (talk) 11:03, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - The topic has enough reliable coverage in the media - Expressen and several other sites. In none of the articles the subject is mentioned in passing. It also by definition can't be WP:COATRACK, I suggest the submitter first becomes familar with what WP:COATRACK says.--Warenford (talk) 15:36, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 15 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. Contrary to what User:Warenford says, the topic seems not to have sufficient coverage, or any coverage at all, in Swedish media. Using Google, Svenska Dagbladet: 0 hits (1 in a reader comment). Dagens Nyheter: 1 hit (in an interview with a well known political extremist). Göteborgs-Posten: 0 hits. Sydsvenskan: 0 hits. Aftonbladet: 0 hits in newspaper text. Sveriges radio (sverigesradio.se): 0 hits. Sveriges Television (svt.se): 0 hits. TV4 (tv4.se): 0 hits. Expressen: no hits in newspaper text, several other hits, but only in context of "debunking" this myth. These are the major Swedish newspapers, public service radio and television and the largest commercial TV-channel. Ah, but they are all part of the conspiracy. /NH (talk) 16:07, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Objection: all the media you quoted are either liberal or (quasi)state-owned. Its natural that they wouldn't inform about this matter. Expressen didn't debunk the fact that white pixelization happened, on the contrary, they confirmed it, as stated in the article. I was talking about media in general and enough of those mention it, as is apparent from the sources in the article.--Warenford (talk) 17:45, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I understood your comment here that you didn't learn about the subject in swedish media? Back on topic the article isn't noteworthy, if you Google it you'll find more hits on plasma TVs with problems than sites discussing the conspiracy. GameOn (talk) 10:34, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone  00:17, 23 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge into pixelization in its own section. --Article editor (talk) 05:05, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Objection: I believe that would be giving undue weight to that aspect of pixelization. It has been confirmed in one newspaper in one country and is now discontinued. It's much less significant than the other examples in pixelization. Sjö (talk) 06:09, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. The phenomenon definitely exists, or at least has existed, to some extent in mainstream media in Sweden. The reason that right--wingers & populist nationalist groups are a bit too obsessed about poinying out the phenomenon is, in my opinion, not a reason for deleting the article. Tomas e (talk) 18:03, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: Media is plural, but so far this has only been shown to be used by one single newspaper. Sjö (talk) 18:12, 24 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment, despite the use of the term by certain political sectors the term describes an actual phenomenon an is not per definition biased. Yet the term seems a neologism, but an important one. Dentren  |  Ta lk  22:50, 25 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep, noteworthy subject matter related to topic of censorship. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 06:46, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep, we can't pretend that this term does not exist.--Bothnia (talk) 22:02, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep and Fresh categories added: This is also related to journalism ethics and legal and race issues, such as profiling.Crtew (talk) 14:46, 29 May 2013 (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.