201:, a newspaper with a circulation of 150,000 in a city of 18,000,000, is somewhat notable, the rest of the sources are all Bucknell University student groups who talk about it because there was a minor ruckus. The few notable sources dug up in the first AfD ring more of "even of a broken clock is right twice a day" than anything about a quirky little filmlet that has had an impact anywhere, with all of its 300 Google hits. The Chronicle "blurb" doesn't even mention the film, although presumably the paid version talks about it
707:
It doesn't affect my psyche one way or the other. Bear in mind though that there was an early close of an AfD last week that was immediately reopened, but because of some technicality, all votes after the close and reopen were invalidated, and the AfD was forced closed. I can't say that I understand
653:
I have to say that I had my doubts about this nomination, in terms of it being a WP:POINT violation related to other disputes that you are involved in currently. But that is unrelated to my reasons for supporting a keep, and therefore why I did not mention it initially. For example, on a biography
735:
654:
related to this article, you admit on the talk page that the subject is indeed notable, yet you placed a notability tag on the article within a day of making that statement. Perhaps you have perfectly valid reasons for these actions, but those reasons are not readily apparent. -
717:
If you want to look into it, you are welcome to do so. Since a non-admin closed, and was immediately reverted, I don't think there is really much of an issue; if that was the case, any old editor could force a hand by just closing. Doesn't seem very wiki, does it? Nah...
261:
qualify (found on only the third page of hits), there are quite a few people out there who use the phrase "brainwashing 101" that have nothing to do with the film, which is why I added the director's name, since the film isn't really discussed without mentioning his name.
670:
I wonder why the speedy close was reverted? I see nothing improper about it. If you look at the first AfD, it was also closed speedy, and early. There are no delete votes save the nomination. Why waste everyone's time here? This is an obvious snowball, and no, not
592:. Nothing has changed since May except that the film has gotten more publicity since then. And the context of the nominator's last few hundred edits put the nomination in a questionable light, and I request an admin warn about disruptive POV-pushing.
690:
notable. Delete or merge is merited. Casting doubt on my good faith only serves as a strawman, but I don't mind. Why the need to speedy close instead of allowing it to run its course? If it's a keeper, it's a keeper. No big thang.
164:, I have notified the participants of the previous AfD, one of whom was a main contributor to the article. The nominator of that AfD is no longer with us, so I did not notify that editor. Earlier contributors appear to be inactive. -
685:
In twelve hours we have a snowball, after you canvassed the original keepers? I don't think so. It's a barely notable 46 minute piece of propaganda, that has since been made into a feature length piece of propaganda that
188:
It was nominated for deletion before, but it was apparently seen as in bad faith because it was nominated by an SPA. Fails almost all guidelines for notability to have its own article. Most of the sources simply
77:
183:
307:
at 274. Crockspot, you are
Googling and looking at the first page and that number, which doesn't factor our "repeats" or pages where there is simply a mention of the film on one website about 100 times, or
349:
304:
497:". I suggest the discussion focus on whether or not the film is "widely distributed", and whether or not it has been reveiwed by a "nationally known critics". No opinion myself.
131:
331:
72:
244:. I'm sure if I broke a sweat, I could find many more. Clearly notable enough, and the article can probably be expanded. Last AfD was in May, why now all of a sudden? -
352:. You have to go to the last page of hits to see unique pages. Usually if you can reach a last page, the subject isn't particularly notable by this measure.
380:
The unique results are only calculated on the first 1,000 hits, not over all hits. So the actual number of hits for this page is between 300 and 800.
286:
Notable enough. I think your search parameters were too restrictive. Searching with just
Maloney increases the hit count to almost 1,600. -
625:
And I don't think this is a Snow issue, and the AfD has only been open for 12 hours. Let it run its full course. It's just annoying you;
205:; and The Times article from 2005 is interesting, though in retrospect this clearly has proven to be an unnotable 46 minute film short. --
104:
99:
108:
17:
758:
742:
729:
712:
702:
679:
658:
644:
620:
596:
576:
564:
541:
516:
504:
477:
445:
404:
384:
365:
338:
321:
290:
277:
248:
216:
193:
the film, but don't discuss it; such as a brief note that it is being shown at an (unnotable) film festival. A possible merge with
168:
153:
91:
56:
537:
572:
This article cites a sufficient number of references to establish notability. I think there is a POV reason behind this AFD. --
237:
229:
225:
781:
36:
310:
So far, you haven't really shown how this is notable, and if anything, seem to be showing how it is unnotable. --
780:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
495:
The film is widely distributed and has received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics.
378:
375:
233:
557:
95:
736:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/List of inventions shown on
American Inventor (second nomination)
393:
That was actually an education for me - I had no idea. So, there goes that. I did a strike through --
258:
550:
533:
752:
723:
696:
638:
614:
471:
442:
398:
359:
315:
271:
210:
147:
459:
434:
194:
228:. In addition to the sources I added prior to this nom, there were several others I found from
501:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
630:
626:
589:
49:
87:
62:
606:
525:
441:(Maloney's feature-length version of this documentary but with all newly shot footage). --
490:
739:
709:
676:
655:
463:
438:
335:
287:
245:
165:
264:
Your links mostly mention the film in passing, with it meriting one or two sentences.
241:
498:
198:
53:
125:
513:
573:
381:
524:. Crockspot is right, it has enough sources. Fits into WP:N just fine. --
633:. Stop taking everything personally. Really: it's not all about you. --
593:
549:- plenty of references from reliable and big name sources. Notable.
738:, which was reopened again, so not sure what is going on there. -
774:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
348:
Yes, because as I explained, you only look at the first page.
747:
Doesn't sound like this has anything to do with this AfD. --
708:
the exact reasons, but it might be worth looking into. -
121:
117:
113:
78:
Articles for deletion/Brainwashing 101 (2nd nomination)
605:LOL - request away, although an admin is likely to
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
138:Very few notable sources that discuss this work,
784:). No further edits should be made to this page.
734:I had to dig back a few hundred edits, it was
8:
52:, near-unanimous voting. Non-admin closure
259:musings about writing to Mormon friends
70:
73:Articles for deletion/Brainwashing 101
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
512:- ample sources as per Crockspot -
350:In reality, there are only 274 hits
69:
24:
197:may be in order. Although the
493:that seems relevant here is, "
1:
140:only returns 300 Google hits,
224:. Google return is actually
759:20:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
743:20:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
730:18:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
713:18:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
703:18:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
680:18:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
659:17:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
645:17:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
621:17:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
597:16:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
577:14:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
565:12:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
542:08:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
517:07:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
505:05:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
478:05:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
446:05:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
405:17:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
385:14:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
366:12:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
339:12:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
322:11:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
291:05:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
278:05:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
249:05:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
217:04:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
169:05:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
154:04:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
142:only 46 minute long "film"
57:22:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
801:
266:This makes it notable? --
777:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
182:This film only returns
68:AfDs for this article:
609:, as they should. --
675:kind of snowball. -
460:Evan Coyne Maloney
454:I would support a
435:Evan Coyne Maloney
429:per Crockspot, or
230:Hollywood Reporter
195:Evan Coyne Maloney
489:The only part of
257:Actually, unless
792:
779:
755:
750:
726:
721:
699:
694:
641:
636:
617:
612:
561:
555:
529:
528:Dennis The Tiger
474:
469:
401:
396:
362:
357:
318:
313:
303:, it's actually
274:
269:
213:
208:
150:
145:
129:
111:
88:Brainwashing 101
63:Brainwashing 101
34:
800:
799:
795:
794:
793:
791:
790:
789:
788:
782:deletion review
775:
753:
748:
724:
719:
697:
692:
639:
634:
615:
610:
559:
551:
527:
472:
467:
399:
394:
360:
355:
316:
311:
301:That's not true
272:
267:
242:Opinion Journal
238:Weekly Standard
211:
206:
148:
143:
102:
86:
83:
66:
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
798:
796:
787:
786:
770:
769:
768:
767:
766:
765:
764:
763:
762:
761:
668:
667:
666:
665:
664:
663:
662:
661:
648:
647:
600:
599:
579:
567:
544:
519:
507:
483:
482:
481:
480:
464:Indoctrinate U
449:
448:
443:Metropolitan90
439:Indoctrinate U
422:
421:
420:
419:
418:
417:
416:
415:
414:
413:
412:
411:
410:
409:
408:
407:
388:
387:
369:
368:
342:
341:
325:
324:
294:
293:
281:
280:
252:
251:
219:
174:
173:
172:
171:
136:
135:
82:
81:
80:
75:
67:
65:
60:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
797:
785:
783:
778:
772:
771:
760:
757:
756:
746:
745:
744:
741:
737:
733:
732:
731:
728:
727:
716:
715:
714:
711:
706:
705:
704:
701:
700:
689:
684:
683:
682:
681:
678:
674:
660:
657:
652:
651:
650:
649:
646:
643:
642:
632:
628:
624:
623:
622:
619:
618:
608:
604:
603:
602:
601:
598:
595:
591:
587:
583:
580:
578:
575:
571:
568:
566:
563:
562:
556:
554:
548:
545:
543:
539:
535:
531:
530:
523:
520:
518:
515:
511:
508:
506:
503:
500:
496:
492:
488:
485:
484:
479:
476:
475:
465:
461:
457:
453:
452:
451:
450:
447:
444:
440:
436:
432:
428:
424:
423:
406:
403:
402:
392:
391:
390:
389:
386:
383:
379:
376:
373:
372:
371:
370:
367:
364:
363:
353:
351:
346:
345:
344:
343:
340:
337:
333:
329:
328:
327:
326:
323:
320:
319:
309:
306:
302:
298:
297:
296:
295:
292:
289:
285:
284:
283:
282:
279:
276:
275:
265:
260:
256:
255:
254:
253:
250:
247:
243:
239:
235:
231:
227:
223:
220:
218:
215:
214:
204:
200:
196:
192:
187:
185:
179:
176:
175:
170:
167:
163:
160:
159:
158:
157:
156:
155:
152:
151:
141:
133:
127:
123:
119:
115:
110:
106:
101:
97:
93:
89:
85:
84:
79:
76:
74:
71:
64:
61:
59:
58:
55:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
776:
773:
751:
722:
695:
687:
672:
669:
637:
613:
586:Speedy close
585:
581:
569:
558:
552:
546:
526:
521:
509:
494:
486:
470:
455:
430:
426:
397:
358:
347:
330:Hmmm, I get
314:
300:
299:
270:
263:
221:
209:
202:
199:New York Sun
190:
186:Google hits.
181:
177:
161:
146:
139:
137:
45:
43:
31:
28:
570:Strong Keep
226:11,000 hits
222:Strong keep
553:Ben W Bell
433:to either
374:Oh really?
754:Shankbone
740:Crockspot
725:Shankbone
710:Crockspot
698:Shankbone
677:Crockspot
656:Crockspot
640:Shankbone
616:Shankbone
473:Shankbone
400:Shankbone
361:Shankbone
336:Crockspot
317:Shankbone
288:Crockspot
273:Shankbone
246:Crockspot
212:Shankbone
203:somewhere
180:as nom.
166:Crockspot
149:Shankbone
234:Guardian
132:View log
631:WP:COOL
629:, THF,
627:WP:COOL
590:WP:SNOW
502:Chovain
487:Comment
425:Either
191:mention
105:protect
100:history
54:JForget
50:WP:SNOW
607:WP:AGF
514:Fosnez
240:, and
178:Delete
109:delete
749:David
720:David
693:David
635:David
611:David
538:stuff
491:WP:NF
468:David
466:. --
458:with
456:merge
431:merge
395:David
356:David
332:1,590
312:David
268:David
207:David
144:David
126:views
118:watch
114:links
16:<
673:that
588:per
584:and
582:Keep
574:EAEB
560:talk
547:Keep
536:and
534:Rawr
522:Keep
510:Keep
499:Mark
427:keep
382:Fram
334:. -
305:less
162:Note
122:logs
96:talk
92:edit
48:per
46:Keep
594:THF
462:or
437:or
308:so.
184:300
130:– (
718:--
691:--
688:is
540:)
354:--
236:,
232:,
124:|
120:|
116:|
112:|
107:|
103:|
98:|
94:|
532:(
377:,
134:)
128:)
90:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.