Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hacking Democracy

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 Snowball KEEP Tbeatty 07:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable documentary according to the Film notability requirement. Even IMDB doesn't have a lot of details. WP is not IMDB and is not repositiry for every film ever made. This film has no claim to notability. Tbeatty 19:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: More Discussion on discussion page. - F.A.A.F.A. 01:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: AfD posted on 'Conspiracy Theory Noticeboard' - Noticeboard - F.A.A.F.A. 20:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nominator. Tbeatty 19:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete True that. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Atlant 19:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Or at least include in a related article. Alejos 20:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - NN. Possibly deserves a mention in a voter supression article. - Crockspot 20:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per nom. Chris Kreider 20:20, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The film just came out, and already has has quite a few news articles (via Google News) written about it. Seems notable to me. --Psiphiorg 20:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Bad faith POV nomination by 'Conspiracy Theorists Noticeboard' Member. 'Hacking Democracy + HBO = 309,000 Ghits and 215 Gnewshits. Highly notable. Misuse of Conspiracy Theorists Noticeboard. This film in not even remotely connected to any 'Conspiracy theory'. Princeton Study documented inherent insecurity and other flaws with electronic voting. New poll shows that over 1/3 of voters 'don't trust' it. I ask that nominator Tbeatty withdraw this bad faith nomination. - F.A.A.F.A. 20:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:AGF --NuclearZer0 20:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • [1] 06:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Borderline conspiracy or not, an HBO Film doesn't have a claim to notability? Even without the news links above, the HBO relation confers notability. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Agree with Psiphiorg; at worst it's too early to tell if it's notable or not. --Nephtes 20:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete The article is being used as a dumpnig ground for a pirated version of the movie. A user states th eproducers put it there however there is no proof of that and further they have no right nor permission to display and show HBO content. Since the user seems determined to keep putting it back I have changed my vote to delete for the greater good of our copyright regulations on Wikipedia. --NuclearZer0 20:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Keep Notable documentary, HBO even stood up to the pressure not to air it and went ahead under much fan faire on their website. However if the pirate copy keeps appearing on the page by the end of this AfD I will change my vote as it seems the article will have turned into a promotion of pirated content. No the producers of the film have no right to distribute HBO content, meaning their logo's etc. --NuclearZer0 20:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep; a documentary aired on HBO and widely discussed in the media passes all tests for notability and inclusion. This is not remotely "conspiracycruft"; it's mainstream politics. As for the link to the video on YouTube, its appearance in the article has nothing to do with this AfD. The link can be discussed on the Talk page for the article based on application of WP:EL. --MCB 21:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I saw this on HBO a few days ago - I can't remember what night but it was given a primetime slot. The argument for deletion isn't very compelling. This may be the first time I've come down on the same side as badlydrawnjeff. GabrielF 21:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• revised to neutral - As the article is now. Reading the article im hit with a feeling "so what". Perhaps if the article should fill with content that asserts the subjects nobility, Ill glad change my vote. As it is now, the article itself makes the best case for deletion. Dman727 22:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revising my view to Neutral. Sourcing from NY times and other major sources is good. I still find the article very lacking. Why would someone choose to view it here on Wiki, rarely than a movie website such as imdb.com? The article now is sparce and doesnt make a case for itself as to why this documentary is notable above the thousands of other documentaries not on wiki.Dman727 05:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep - A google news search shows this documentary to be newsworthy, without even having to look at whether it fulfils any other notability criteria as a film. --Aim Here 23:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a news source. Tbeatty 23:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If something hits the news in a major way, it becomes notable and therefore encyclopedic. --Aim Here 00:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep - This is a documentary broadcast on HBO, covered in multiple mainstream news sources, including the NY Times, Washington Post, The Register (UK), Seattle PI, NY Daily News, Boston Herald, etc. Let's avoid WP:OSTRICH in nominations, it's clearly a notable film and easily passes WP:NOTFILM#Released_films item 1. This nomination should be withdrawn. The article needs sourcing, not deletion. Spark* 00:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Even though the Andy Stephenson AfDs left a bitter taste in my mouth I cannot argue that this documentary is not notable.--Rosicrucian 00:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. You have got to be kidding me. (Article's creator.) —☆ CieloEstrellado 01:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is an HBO film, it is not a bunch of teenagers with a webcam. That's notable enough for me. --02:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Seems notable enough. (Can't speak for the individuals mentioned in the film, however.) Jinxmchue 02:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Sufficiently notable and is properly verified by a reliable, third-party source (could use a couple more, though). -- Satori Son 03:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. Notable, verified, etc. --- RockMFR 04:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I'm not worried about the threat of re-insertion of improper content. We (the sensible editors) can generally outlast the troublemakers. JamesMLane t c 05:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Major documentary released by major studio on a major television network. WAY notable. --Jayron32 06:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep nomination borders on the absurd. well sourced. plenty of news coverage. Could we lay off the political stuff until a few weeks after the election? It's become an enormous waste of time. Derex 06:45, 7 November 2006 (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.