Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dreams from My Real Father

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. (non-admin closure) — ΛΧΣ21™ 21:17, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dreams from My Real Father

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

Article and subject are nothing but WP:NOT-violating clap-trap. p b p 21:03, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This article is intended to be a balanced piece of information about a sensitive topic. Its only link to "clap-trap" is that it is about such a topic and therefore can't help but be odd. Adding any much more information would violate WP:SOAP. As for subject, see {{Conspiracy theories}} : Barack Obama. --Auric (talk) 21:18, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at the claims section. All of those claims are patently outrageous and have been disproven a myriad of times, but that's not even mention. And this is after I removed the cast section owing to the fact that Michelle and Axelrod pretty clearly weren't willful participants in the movie p b p 21:20, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Interesting. Please link to a reliable source showing that they have been disproved. Everything I can find is filled with rhetoric of some sort. As far as I know these are recent claims (4 months). I agree with the cast section. That probably comes from clips involving them being part of the film.--Auric (talk) 21:48, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - More Campaign 2012 fooliganism. Fails GNG. Carrite (talk) 02:25, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Perhaps you could do the same for 2016: Obama's America? Same reasons.--Auric (talk) 02:42, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep but Re-write - the subject clearly passes WP:GNG as far as I am concerned - there are multiple articles solely focussed on the "film" and responses to it. However, I don't think the article properly reflects the available sources at all. Almost every single source refers to the film as either a pseudo-documentary or a conspiracy theory (and not in very complimentary terms, either). Most of the stuff in the film seems to be obvious WP:FRINGE-theory stuff and even the responses in the sources provided highlight the fact that it was created on the basis of assumptions and theories, not facts or evidence. Stalwart111 (talk) 02:44, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is there a possible merge target? The nearest I can see is Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories which peripherally touches on his parentage, or Early life and career of Barack Obama but we maybe shouldn't clog that with confusing lies and conspiracy theories. Or maybe we need another article on Obama conspiracy theories? --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:42, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep due to significant coverage from reliable sources; I found this and this in a very quick search engine test. I do agree with Stalwart111 that the article needs an overhaul. ~~I would also recommend linking to Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories in some capacity.~~ Erik (talk | contribs) 11:46, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Erik (talk | contribs) 11:51, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yes, this article is about the worst kind of scurrilous crap. No, I do not want to dignify it with a Wikipedia entry. But notability is notability, and this clearly passes WP:GNG, sorry to say. We don't get to pick and choose. Yakushima (talk) 06:35, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Make that Speedy Keep. I actually find the nom more embarrassing to Wikipedia than the article itself. The nom feeds the unfortunate meme of "Liberal bias on Wikipedia." If in fact hundreds of thousands of these DVDs have gone out, with millions more to go, and with mounting mainstream press coverage, the nom makes it look like Wikipedians are using bureaucratic proceduralism to suppress information about the film, at a time when Wikipedia -- simply by exercising WP:NPOV and WP:RS and WP:UNDUE -- could be acting as an excellent corrective to this trash. Yakushima (talk) 04:36, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because the topic passes WP:GNG. The topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:49, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Re: this passes GNG and must be kept. Remember that this is a NOT nomination (mostly based on WP:SOAP), not a notability one. NOT is a policy and NOTE is a guideline, so NOT trumps NOTE p b p 19:19, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What part of WP:SOAP applies? The article as it stands talks about the topic, it does not push the topic. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:21, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as an obviously notable topic, per the readily-available reliable sources. WP:SOAP means that we don't publish propaganda, not that we don't publish articles about notable propaganda. I share Yakushima's concern that having a deletion template on this article can only feed the conspiracy theorists. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:55, 8 October 2012 (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.