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 no consensus. The ridiculous socking has been a detriment to this discussion, and is shameful. Based on a review of all the comments, there are appropriate policy-based comments in both directions. At this point, I'm finding there to be NO CONSENSUS to either keep or delete at this time D P 18:54, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fox Attacks[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable online video campaign. Lacks multiple reliable sources specifically about the topic. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:13, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, numerous sources available, about the subject well meeting GNG, this is a clean-up issue. Sportfan5000 (talk) 23:46, 15 March 2014 (UTC) [WP:BAN Unscintillating (talk) 22:16, 23 March 2014 (UTC)][reply]
- ~~Dodd, Tracey. "The role of broadband in the quest for environmental sustainability." Telecommunications Journal of Australia 57.2/3 (2007).~~

~~numerous sources available, about the subject, well meeting GNG, this is a clean-up issue. Sportfan5000 (talk) 23:46, 15 March 2014 (UTC)~~ [WP:BAN Unscintillating (talk) 22:16, 23 March 2014 (UTC)][reply]
- These, again, are about Greenwald and not the subject. This might be an argument for a merger. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:13, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Disagree with your assessment. And this was always going to be either a keep or merge as there is a parent article that this is tied to, so there was no reason to delete. Let's see what others have to say. Sportfan5000 (talk) 14:27, 16 March 2014 (UTC) [WP:BAN Unscintillating (talk) 22:16, 23 March 2014 (UTC)][reply]
    - There actually isn't a parent article to point this at currently. You can disagree with my assessment, but part of discussion is explaining why. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:50, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - It's right there in the first sentences -

Fox Attacks is a 2007-08 viral video campaign [...] produced [...] in conjunction with their 2004 full-length documentary Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism.

- - - - So Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism is the defacto parent article. There remains no reason to remove any of this content. The only question is can it be a good article, or does everything need to be merged to the parent article until its later spun out. I see no reason to not allow it to be on its own, and I think there are plenty of sources covering this subject to at least a GNG level. Sportfan5000 (talk) 00:24, 17 March 2014 (UTC) [WP:BAN Unscintillating (talk) 22:16, 23 March 2014 (UTC)][reply]
        And yet those sources aren't coming. There's no evidence that Outfoxed is related to Fox Attacks outside of the same person running both. A merger to Greenwald might make sense given the slight mentions in some of the sources you link above, but that's it. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:18, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        ~~They are even if you don't seem to like them. Sportfan5000 (talk) 01:07, 18 March 2014 (UTC)~~ [WP:BAN Unscintillating (talk) 22:16, 23 March 2014 (UTC)][reply]
        NB: Sportfan5000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of Benjiboi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:58, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there is certainly significant amount of secondary source coverage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StellaBella242 (talk • contribs) 03:33, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Fox Attacks has a multitude of coverage, enough for it to have its own article. In my opinion there is too much differing content for it to be merged smoothly with Outfoxed, although it could be made to work, and is still preferrable to deletion. Greedo 8 17:27, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, the pile-on about secondary coverage is not examining what this coverage is. For example, The Fox Effect, linked above, does not mention the Greenwald effort once. Another book, The Republican Noise Machine, predates the Greenwald effort by three years (an issue that will go for any source purporting to be about this campaign that predates its 2007 launch). The closing administrator should take care in noting the way these sources are being misrepresented in this discussion. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:54, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of those are used as references in the article, they're being mentioned here only as references to the subject as a whole, not about Fox Attacks specifically. Greedo 8 18:14, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What we need are references about Fox Attacks to understand notability and to build an article. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:24, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article has 9 references: 1 about Outfoxed, 1 is the channel on Youtube, and 7 others illustrate notability and are used to build the article. I'm not sure what the issue you have is, could you be more specific? Greedo 8 18:35, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:N and understand what are reliable sources for information. Blog posts, press releases, those aren't what we need. A single line citation of "for example see Fox Attacks the Environment" does not show notability or give us anything to build off of. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:39, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So your only problem is the type of sources that are used. Maybe this would have been better suited to a discussion on the article's talk page instead of immediately pursuing deletion. An out-of-the-blue proposition for deletion seems to be an overreaction, please see WP:Before. Greedo 8 19:06, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is the lack of reliable sources about the topic, which is grounds for deletion. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:20, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree, subject has plenty of reliable sources available, some on the article, some posted here, and others easily accessible for those who look. As noted above there is zero grounds for deletion, as this has a parent article. So the choices are to keep or merge, which seems silly since this is an acceptable stand-alone article on its own. Sportfan5000 (talk) 01:07, 18 March 2014 (UTC) [WP:BAN Unscintillating (talk) 22:16, 23 March 2014 (UTC)][reply]

So where are they? The sources you posted, some of them don't even mention the subject at all. Another is literally a five word citation in a little-seen academic paper. The choice to delete is not only on the table, but, as it stands, the most logical choice given the lack of reliable sources. Thargor Orlando (talk) 11:42, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I just added 8 new independent sources, including NYT, LA Weekly (published by Village Voice), NBC, etc; confirming the link with Outfoxed, the notability of the viral video campaign, and a bunch of other statements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanshuimom (talk • contribs) 20:17, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Of the actual reliable sources put into the article (as many were not), the NBC piece is an interview with Greenwald, never once mentions "Fox Attacks." The LA Weekly piece does not mention the movement, merely one video entitled "Fox attacks Obama." The New York Times piece is about the environmentalist movement and Home Depot, not about the video series (it only mentions the Fox Attacks the Environment video in passing). The lack of multiple, reliable sources about the subject that are required for notability and verifiability are still nonexistent, and we should not keep or delete an article based solely on what people's feelings on the subject are. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:24, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, good deal of secondary source coverage. — Cirt (talk) 22:53, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → Call me Hahc21 03:11, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I closed this as keep because my impression is that consensus was leaning that way. However, I overlooked several details of importance that were outlined to me, and I decided to relist it instead. → Call me Hahc21 03:12, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- A note: those details involve the now-indeffed sock above who posted a number of irrelevant links and passed them off as about the topic. Please keep this in mind. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:56, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Robert Greenwald. Seems to have some coverage, but it doesn't look like it'll ever be more than a sentence or two. --RaiderAspect (talk) 07:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This topic has been addressed by the NY Times, the San Francisco Chronicle, AP, the LA Times, USA Today, PBS, the Huffington Post, academic writings from the University of Rochester and MIT, as well as scholarly books and a wide variety of lesser-known sources. I believe this should establish notability. If it is to be merged, it ought to go into Outfoxed, as it is part of the same campaign. Sanshuimom (talk) 02:20, 26 March 2014 (UTC) (struck the vote as a duplicate from before the relist, Hobit (talk) 15:45, 7 April 2014 (UTC))[reply]
- Can you please share those sources? They don't seem to exist here or in the article. Also, this does not have any reliable sources linking it to Outfoxed, so it's a poor target. We need sources. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:19, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - They are in the article. Please look again. NYT is reference 10, SF Chronicle is 7, AP is 12, LAT is 4, USA Today is 8, PBS is 11, HP is 6, U Rochester is 5, MIT is 3 (Jump Cut is an MIT publication), Bloggers on the Bus is one of the books (ref 2). Beyond the Echo Chamber by Clark and Slyke is another book with references, but it's starting to get silly when I have 3-5 references for some of the statements, so I haven't added that one. Yet. Most of the refs are about political film/documentary in the Internet age or and/or left-right politics; most have a chapter (at most) or a couple of paragraphs about BNF/Greenwald/Fox Attacks. A couple just have a sentence or two that support a specific claim in the article. Nevertheless, the fact that this video series (and specific videos in the series) was/were sufficiently visible to garner mention (let alone get chapters in books and inches of column) in most of the major mainstream media outlets in the country affirm its notability. As for the Outfoxed links, you've deleted them a couple of times, but I'll dig 'em back up if other folks think it's necessary. Sanshuimom (talk) 14:26, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - As noted, these are not sources specifically about the topic, which is required for notability. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:35, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - Fox Attacks is linked to Outfoxed on Outfoxed's own website. Greedo 8 16:06, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge Covered Eric Boehlert (2009). Bloggers on the Bus: How the Internet Changed Politics and the Press. Simon and Schuster. p. 14. ISBN 9781416560357. albeit briefly. All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 16:15, 27 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]
- The coverage is a grand total of [http://books.google.com/books?id=K5wnQVh18G4C&printsec=frontcover&dq=bloggers+on+the+bus&hl=en&sa=X&ei=mVE0U9jpDKya0gH--YDgAg&ved=0CD4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22fox%20attacks%22&f=false 2 paragraphs in a 350 page book. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:29, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There seems to be a lot of mainstream coverage. IonSmasher (talk) 00:57, 28 March 2014 (UTC)— IonSmasher (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment, is there any article about controversities surrounding Fox News Channel? It would be a perfect target for a merging... Cavarrone 07:10, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Fox News Channel controversies. I'm not sure if merging it to there is the best idea, but discussion about it wouldn't hurt. Greedo8 16:00, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's not really a controversy if one guy is just agitating repeatedly. I'm not against a merger to Greenwald within reason, though. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:37, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:51, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Bushranger, I'm not sure I understand why you have relisted this again. Can you please clarify? It's been discussed for weeks. I have responded to objections and improved content and references repeatedly. I wasn't a math major, but I count 7 people (including me) that have said it has sufficient notability, references, major media coverage, etc to Keep (one was Keep/Merge). I'm not including sockpuppet guy, of course. There's one vote for merge. One single guy has come back at least 13 times in 2 weeks (by my count) to argue for deletion. I admire his tenacity, even though I disagree with his POV. I know it's not a question of majority rule, but a fair number of people have had a fair amount to say about policy, notability, sources and the validity thereof. This is the first of my articles that has been AfD, so maybe I don't understand the process. I'd be grateful if you'd tell me what more is needed to achieve consensus in this particular case. Sanshuimom (talk) 15:20, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Robert Greenwald or Delete. Northern Antarctica (₵) 19:39, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
keep at issue really is the title of the article from what I can tell. Perhaps the organization is also an issue. But this is about a collection of videos and a number of the videos have reasonable coverage in RSes. So should they be joined together as part of a series? Seems like a reasonable organization thing for us to do. One issue to worry about is if we are doing OR to so group/name these videos. But as Greenwald defined the idea of the series and it's title including a website by that name, it's not OR. I view it as much the way we might choose to group a bunch of episodes of a show or songs on an album. Also Eric Boehlert's book (yes only two paragraphs) shows that the series had some impact as a series... Hobit (talk) 15:40, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.