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 delete. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 18:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meet Your Meat[edit]

There are no sources that state this propaganda film is notable or any external sources that discuss it at all. It entirely exists on self-sourcing. It links directly to the sources in multiple languages causing Wikipedia to be a promotional tool for an otherwise bland and un-notable advertising campaign. SchmuckyTheCat 02:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article history shows interest from multiple users, as does "What links here." 90,000 ghits: also good. May not meet strict criteria for notability, but I think it should be given time to develop - and I'll kill the bad external links. YechielMan 04:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The other contributors to this discussion have persuaded me to come to their side. YechielMan 04:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's not listed on Alec Baldwin's IMDb page and when I tooled around some of those ghits I couldn't find a review except from some extremely obscure sites (like a blog). Amazon sells it (for five bucks), but I see no outside reviews except what the creators made for publicity purposes. I was a bit put off by the nominator calling it "propaganda" but that's actually a fair description of it. If it were put together independently from an activist organization, I think it would be more worthy of an article, given all those hits. But if those 90K hits are a result of PETA's propaganda efforts over the past few years, then why should Wikipedia get drawn into that? If there were some independent confirmation that this propaganda had a notable impact, then that could be a reason for an article on it. Noroton 04:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or merge into PETA. Does not meet general notability guidelines: has not "been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself." As a point of interest, also does not meet the proposed Wikipedia:Notability (films) guideline. —Trevyn 06:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The AP ran an article about the film in 2003: see [1]. (This may not be the best site, but a quick Factiva search shows that the article did indeed exist.) I think it's likely that there are more sources available if someone wants to do some digging, so let's wait and see what people can find. Zagalejo 15:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this counts for something. Zagalejo 16:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is an advertisement for a video press release. The Baldwin award does not make it notable because it is not independent of the subject of the article (Alec Baldwin narated Meet your Meat [2]). Selket ^Talk 16:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand your argument here. There is a USA Today newspaper article about Baldwin's PETA award. USA Today is independent of PETA, right? Zagalejo 22:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you make a good point, Zagalejo. The article lends some support for notability. I originally thought the award was from PETA as well, but looking again I see it was something given out by the Linda McCarthy Foundation. (I'm more impressed by the information on changing Burger King's policies, but the problem here is the information all comes from PETA. Independent confirmation of that would change my vote.) I can't bring up anything on the AP article by following the link above. Wikipedia has articles on TV commercials (the Mac/PC series of commercials a good one), so in theory this could be an article, even considered as propaganda. But we still need more citable evidence. Noroton 18:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless adequate independent references can be found. WMMartin 18:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have drawn attention to this AfD at Wikipedia:WikiProject Animal rights. The participants there may be able to provide some reliable sources. Rockpocket 22:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (my first shadowy step into the AfD world) there is no current mention of it in the PETA wikipedia article, Maybe mention of it in that discussion Page will spark some intrest. Andyzweb
Merge into PETA or Animal rights —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Teardrop onthefire (talk • contribs) 08:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep I know there seems to be precious little information on this page, but it is still the best source of information out there. Just the fact that there are multiple versions and the latest is from 2003 is potentially useful info that is not easy to find elsewhere without really searching around. It's not that there is no outside info on this video (although it is certainly scarce), but rather that the info is hard to get with a simple Google search. I understand other WPians are saying this article is just part of the problem as it seems like a link drop; I'm arguing that it is also part of the solution because it provides some information not otherwise easy to locate. --Chinasaur 22:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

soooo, what you are saying is that it isn't notable and nobody pays attention to it. SchmuckyTheCat 22:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I said it's something people are interested in, but not easy to find real information on. Nevertheless, the article preserved and provided what little information was available, so IMO it served a useful purpose. Ah well... --Chinasaur 21:23, 20 February 2007 (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.