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 (but cleanup based on concerns expressed here). Cbrown1023 talk 19:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pentagon message machine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

We're creating stub articles about individual NYtimes articles now? What next listing all the letters to the editor? Lemmey (talk) 02:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC) :Article created Today by a now banned user. --Lemmey (talk) 02:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user isn't banned; I think you're thinking of the author at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pentagon rapid response operation. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 02:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, your right got confused, striking comment. --Lemmey (talk) 02:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

History with diff after removing most of the copyright violations and a meager POV cleanup. MrPrada (talk) 16:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, again, it might do us well to have broader articles on Pentagon public affairs or Iraq War media interaction, but this is a POV title chosen by critics and more or less Criticism of the Pentagon. --Dhartung | Talk 03:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is basically just a cheap shot at the Pentagon. If it is really notable it could easily be included in another article on the Pentagon and doesn't need its own article here. Blahblah5555 (talk) 03:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This subject needs more than one New York Times article before it can be considered notable enough for its own article. Until then, we can merge the contents elsewhere.--Danaman5 (talk) 04:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added an additional 7 sources, including a lengthy redux in today's WaPo, bringing the total sources to 9. -- Kendrick7^talk 19:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Pentagon rapid response operation. Bramlet Abercrombie (talk) 13:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • AfD's aren't the place to propose a merge. These are completely separate topics, AFAICT. -- Kendrick7^talk 17:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I take that back. National Public Radio did a segment about this, which did imply this "surrogate operation" was a large subset of the rapid response program.[1] However, I loath merges via AfD, so I'd rather see this article survive independently for now. I also suspect people might start whining about WP:UNDUE were this merged over, given the blowback I'm getting on this article so far. -- Kendrick7^talk 03:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This was a major exposé in the NYT and several other media outlets have secondary coverage of the NYT's scoop today. WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't a reason to delete this. This operation was quite successful, so I don't see how the operation is "criticism" and the operation is or was of an entirely different and separate nature than the project covered in the "rapid response" article. There have been calls now for a Congressional investigation of the Pentagon message machine, so I believe this stub has potential. Anyway, I was going to take a wait and see approach, but I'll expand the article in light of the AfD. -- Kendrick7^talk 17:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Every political scandal sounds POV, because that is their nature. Is Watergate POV? When such an article is written without bias, one side is much more compelling than the other. That this may be one-sided criticism of the Pentagon isn't grounds for deletion. Of course, whatever defenses the Pentagon presents should be included. But any interesting, coherent event deserves coverage in WP if written up properly. Considering how much controversy is likely to result from this, there will probably be more available sources and information than the single NYT article. It sounds on the face of it like a major occurrence -- essentially a real-life conspiracy to dupe the public. If you think it isn't, put your rebuttal in the article and vote to keep, because now you're sharing valuable information. Potatoswatter (talk) 18:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Unless the Times made any factual errors in reporting, this is going to be an important article. Keep it a stub and add to it carefully as facts are determined, but there is no pressing need to delete; I don't see on what grounds this isn't worthy of an article. JnB987 (talk) 19:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delay and keep for now I think this article has potential, as does Pentagon rapid response operation (also up for deletion). Let's give it a chance to grow and see if this goes anywhere for say, a month. If things quiet down about this whole issue, then consider deleting it. However, this seems to be rather interesting, and quite notable. RingtailedFox • Talk • Contribs 21:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's about the Pentagon, not the NYT Johnbibby (talk) 21:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its neither, Its about a NYT article about an alleged Pentagon program. The WP article shares the name as the NYT article, Pentagon message machine is unlikely the official name of any such program. --Lemmey (talk) 21:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure where you are getting "alleged" from. Sources are reporting this as an actual DoD operation, including interviews with former participants. As for the name :shrug: that's what several of the sources are calling it. --- Kendrick7^talk 21:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename under some appropriate title,such a pentagon manipulation of t he press, combined with other articles as appropriate--there is not evidence that this is or will become a standard term for their operations. DGG (talk) 00:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, this is what the operation is being called by several of the sources, so the title seems ok per WP:NAME. This operation may be worth mentioning on a more general article on the history of DoD press manipulation, but I don't see a rationale for an upmerge to a non-existent more broadly scoped article just for this specific instance. AfD isn't really the place to discuss radically changing the article scope. -- Kendrick7^talk 00:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename and Rewrite Definitely has a POV title. Maybe Newspaper Articles by the Pentagon? Also, some (all) of the article is written in a anti-Pentagon language, need to be NPOV-ed. It is salvageable. Paragon12321 (talk) 00:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and Rename The title is an odd/vague choice that is not time-specific. One should be able to search for the situation using a search engine with relative success (not only find it via an interwiki). The article is long enough and well sourced to be on its own, but still needs to be tied into another (uncreated) general article about pentagon affairs as a whole. Additionally the intro should be more about the pentagon "message machine", not a wikipedia article about the content of a NYT's article that broke the story. -Kain Nihil (talk) 07:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 09:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Of all the DOD's components, I saw today that we have nothing for Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs, probably a good place to shelve all Pentagon media shenanigans (=shady screwups). Maybe someone would like to go for a rewrite? Buckshot06 (talk) 10:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This feels like a major piece of news in the making. Popersman
• Keep I can't help but wonder if the "message machine" is working to have this article deleted. Inalienable rights have felt really alien lately... Raphael (talk) 21:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 16:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply] 

• Keep: important and verifiable. Hermant patel (talk) 02:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. POV title--there is no such organization or operation as "Pentagon message machine", the article is describing an abstract concept akin to something made up in school one day. The article also largely based on self-references to the Times article using a Q&A with the author(a primary source). Any relevant information pertaining to the subject belongs at Force multiplication under #Message force multipliers, United States Army Civil Affairs and Psychological Operations Command (Airborne), and Department of Defense under #Public Affairs, or #Criticism of the Pentagon. MrPrada (talk) 08:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, after checking those references, the article has significant copyright issues, with most of it being word for word plagiarism. It will likely have to be deleted on technical grounds, then rewritten per one of the merge suggestions above. MrPrada (talk) 08:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I weened out the significant amount of text directly lifted from the articles and tagged the remaining references with {{Copyvio link}}, the edit history should be deleted if this closes as a keep. MrPrada (talk) 09:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think you are confused about the proper application of WP:COPYVIO. I've reverted your mangling of the article. -- Kendrick7^talk 18:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Judging by the fact that you haven't restored the sentences that were directly lifted from the sources, I think you do know where the WP:COPYVIO occurred. Do not make me paste them here alongside the edit history, that will only exacerbate the problem. MrPrada (talk) 23:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think your confused by my repeating the gist of what some of the sourced say via more or less verbatim one-sentence excerpts here and there, but this is common practice. I used to believe such excerpts would run afoul of copyvio myself, and have in the past been assured that they would not. -- Kendrick7^talk 00:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or possibly merge. By no means is this the first such topic about a government response to controversy. Simply at the present time and in the U.S., there are related topics with more sourcing, such as the Office of Special Plans, which is far more sourced. I encountered this topic as a new category added to force multiplication, which is decidedly non-national, and see a link as WP:POV or WP:UNDUE. I might well support a general article on international experience with government news influencing, as well as country-specific articles of broader scope. For example, CIA influence on public opinion deals with issues over many decades, not one scandal. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 14:36, 23 April 2008 (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.