Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Negative checking

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. I see a solid consensus to keep this article and move it to Unintentional defamation, perhaps also merging it with Fictitious persons disclaimer. Moving and merging are both editorial decisions that can be made now that this discussion is closed, either WP:BOLDly on the consensus below or by proposals at WP:RM or WP:PM. (non-admin closure) Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:19, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Negative checking (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

After a cursory search through the sources listed in part D of WP:BEFORE, I failed to find any other notable sources (much less three) that specifically speaks of negative checking as opposed to someone's checking account having a negative balance. A search for neg check is admittedly a bit more promising, but it mainly turns out online services as opposed to notable sources.

Given that we can't really merge this article into our article on the fictitious persons disclaimer (which itself doesn't really discuss negative checking), I propose deleting this article. Silcox (talk) 05:18, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• no opinion on how notable, but I looked for the Lunney and Oliphant book mentioned on the page, and it indeed has a para on negative checking just as described, on page 728. Hyperbolick (talk) 06:31, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll admit that I'm unable to read the book due to technical reasons, although I was already aware that the book was mentioned in the article even while writing this AfD. I cannot find any other sources on negative checking, so I think we're stuck in 1R territory even if the book proved to be a non-passing reference for the subject. Silcox (talk) 06:58, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's a shame, because if you had, you would have seen that the source cites a second source itself: Barendt et al. 1997a, pp. 114–115 and Barendt et al. 1997b, pp. 195. That said, I think that this is the BBC's idiosyncratic name for this. I found exactly one other mention, and it was in a directory of BBC departments in a 1993 handbook on television production (ISBN 9780240513447). (Yes, BBC. The original source talks about the BBC. See page 132.) Uncle G (talk) 08:36, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • Barendt, Eric; Lustgarten, Laurence; Norrie, Kenneth; Stephenson, Hugh (1997a). "Broadcasting". Libel and the Media: The Chilling Effect. Clarendon Press. pp. 100–125. doi:10.1093/oso/9780198262275.003.0005. ISBN 9780198262275.
      • Barendt, Eric; Lustgarten, Laurence; Norrie, Kenneth; Stephenson, Hugh (1997b). "Conclusions". Libel and the Media: The Chilling Effect. Clarendon Press. pp. 182–198. doi:10.1093/oso/9780198262275.003.0009. ISBN 9780198262275.

• The section heading used on Barendt et al. 1997a, p. 114 is "The Problem of Unintentional Defamation", by the way. You will get a lot further with unintentional defamation as the subject name. Of course we've had a missing subject titled by one particular nonce noun phrase instead of the actual name since 2008. This is Wikipedia. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 09:24, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Radio, Television, and Law. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:54, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's a UK term, not specifically a BBC one - and indeed the example given in the article is an ITV programme, although it is used at the BBC. Smethurst's How to Write for Television (both 2000 and 2016 editions) has half a page of discussion of neg checking under Libel. Gallagher's Breaking into UK Film and TV Drama (2016) mentions it under Clearances. Orlebar's The Practical Media Dictionary (2003) has an entry for Negative Checks. Note that all of these have a slightly different definition from the current article - it's not just about individuals' names, but also about products and companies. I didn't find any examples of it being used outside the UK; from the US, Patz's Production Management 101 (2002) uses it to mean checking film negatives. Adam Sampson (talk) 13:32, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • With 3 slangy sources where "neg check" is string matched to something partway down and buried in the middle of what is actually a discussion of defamation (the "libel" sources saying "defamatory matter" outright), specifically unintentional defamation, how one risks it and how one can attempt to avoid it, you make my case for me.

    If you go instead to the higher quality law sources like Douglas Maule's Media Law Essentials (EUP, 2017) or Robertson and Lane's Media Law: The Rights of Journalists and Broadcasters (Longman, 1984) you'll find this and more under unintentional defamation. There's tonnes of this if one actually gets the subject name right and stops following the Wikipedia practice of using slang titles and string matching.

    I'll mention at this point that the Lunney and Oliphant book is on the law of tort and page 728 is part of chapter 12, on defamation, pages 727 to 729 dealing with intent and with E. Hulton & Co. v Jones, 20 (AC 1910). as the aforementioned do as well (and which has had impact in Indian and Australian jurispridence). Even the 1 original source cited is telling us all what the subject is. Uncle G (talk) 14:43, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to unintentional defamation and refactor this content into a section on means of preventing this, basically per Uncle G. BD2412 T 14:53, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. This seems related to the concept of "this is a work of fiction, any similarities to real life, people, events are unintentional" that is probably notable, but I am not sure what is the related term, and whether we have any article on this. Merging this to some defamation related topic makes sense. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:18, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Piotrus: That would be the above-mentioned Fictitious persons disclaimer (which has some structural problems of its own, but is notable and fixable). BD2412 T 04:11, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks. I think it is the best place for merger then. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:53, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @Piotrus: I think perhaps we merge both to a new article titled along the lines of Defamation in fictional portrayals. BD2412 T 17:09, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to defamation per WP:NOPAGE. I'm not convinced this meets the WP:GNG. To the extent that people can find sources, it won't make much sense to a reader without explaining defamation. I am open to other targets. Shooterwalker (talk) 13:40, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Shooterwalker. Not enough for a stand alone article (here since 2008), but worth keeping in a page like defamation. Ramos1990 (talk) 03:54, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Views are split between keeping outright, retargeting somewhere else, or merging the content. More discussion needed to determine which is the preferred option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:35, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just my two cents: Keep. I came here from the credits of a Black Mirror (UK) episode that mentioned "Neg Checker".

This was the first thing I found so I think this article is still valuable, even though it's rather short. Since Black Mirror is a UK show, it aligns with what Adam Sampson said in this message, which would probably be a great addition for the article itself. NullDev (talk) 03:48, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 18:32, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to Unintentional defamation, a valid topic. This seems a totally plausible search term, so a redirect would be helpful. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 08:23, 22 April 2025 (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.