Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/The Most Hated Family in America - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Wolfview (talk | contribs) at 05:09, 16 September 2010 (→The Most Hated Family in America). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 05:09, 16 September 2010 by Wolfview (talk | contribs) (→The Most Hated Family in America)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

The Most Hated Family in America

The Most Hated Family in America (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:Notable. This is a television documentary shown on a notable outlet, the BBC; created by a notable person, Louis Theroux; and about a notable subject, the Westboro Baptist Church. However it itself is not notable. No secondary sources are given in the article. It is sourced to the program itself. Other sources are provided to give information on the church but they do not mention the TV program. WP should use this program as a source for other articles (and could also be an external link), but does not need an article on it. Wolfview (talk) 16:06, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I am sure that all BBC programs are mentioned in TV listings and daily reviews. That does not make them notable by WP standards. Wolfview (talk) 16:26, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
It would seem the nominator failed to check the sources mentioned above? The source coverage is far more than being "mentioned in TV listings and daily reviews..." Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 16:30, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep. I would say that the programme is notable, certainly more so than some television related articles (e.g. individual episodes of dramas/comedies). The article may perhaps warrant some improvement. By the precedent set I would say it certainly meets any notability threshold. Mtaylor848 (talk) 16:27, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
I just reviewed Misplaced Pages:Notability (films). There does not seem to be a page for TV documentaries, but the principle seems to be that there have to be sources that discuss the film itself in some depth, not just inform us of its contents and the time it's going to be on TV. (I hope there is no misunderstanding. I am not a member or supporter of the Westboro Baptist Church, in fact I dislike what they are doing and think it is un-Christian. I am also not saying to remove any of the information in this article from WP. It could be a section in the article on the church, or as I said the program used as a source for that article or its website an external link there. I am sure it was a worthwhile, interesting, and informative program -- just not WP notable.) Wolfview (talk) 16:33, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Maybe the nominator did not actually check the above-listed sources, and therefore failed to note that there actually have been "sources that discuss the film itself in some depth" ? Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 16:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
I was going to make the same point. I can think of at least a couple of families that are more hated. :-) Wolfview (talk) 22:57, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
What?... Its the Title of the Documentary thus We use the official name... We cannot help that. Lets btw name rename Tim and Eric Awesome Show, Great Job! for WP:PEACOCK why we are at it and let's change Inconvenient Truth because its debatable wether global warming is "truth" and Whether its truly inconvenient...BB7 (talk) 01:54, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
:-) = "joke" Wolfview (talk) 02:18, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep because of its notable nature (ie, being backed by BBC). However, I agree that there could be more sources and potentially more information. Backtable Speak to me 23:27, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep per Cirt and Backtable. MtD (talk) 01:06, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment: I have added the {{inuse}} tag to this article. I will do some research to improve the page. I will add WP:RS sources to expand the page. I will enlarge the article with referenced info providing critical commentary from secondary sources, and significant discussion of production, reception, and other topical areas pertaining to the article's subject. I will update here regarding progress. Thank you for your time. -- Cirt (talk) 01:40, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep easily notable, and Cirt looks like he is about to go on an expansion spree to prove it. We should nominate more articles for deletion just so Cirt will take the time to expand them. BB7 (talk) 01:54, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
I'll be the first to thank him if he can show that this is notable.Wolfview (talk) 02:23, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, Weaponbb7 (talk · contribs), for the kind words. Much appreciated. -- Cirt (talk) 02:30, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
My comment about the title was a joke, as I said. I do suspect that the title was intended to be somewhat ironic. Please check out the article on Louis Theroux to see what kind of things he is interested in. I can think of a few families, some in organized crime and some in politics, that are hated by more Americans than the Phelps family. Wolfview (talk) 02:55, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
No doubt, but what does that have to do with the notability of the article? MtD (talk) 02:59, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
I thought an AfD was about the notability of the subject, not the article. Wolfview (talk) 06:53, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
I haven't checked out Inconvenient Truth, but I'm sure that, unlike this article, the article on that notable documentary discusses the meaning of the title.Wolfview (talk) 07:15, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Obvious keeper, per Cirt. It's been in a lot of the British dailies, for starters - Alison 03:54, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Update: I have done some significant expansion work on the article . State of article at time of AFD nomination , state of article after expansion work . I expanded the Production subsection. I added subsections including: Contents, Ratings, and Reception, using source coverage from WP:RS secondary sources. I still have about 50 more sources to go through in the course of ongoing research to improve and expand this article (some of those sources and search results are listed, above). However, at this point in time, notability is not simply noted through archive database searches, but also demonstrated, in the current state of the article itself. :) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 04:50, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
    Time to close this thing as a speedy keep or similar. MtD (talk) 05:04, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
    Thanks for the kind words! Most appreciated. :) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 05:04, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —-- Cirt (talk) 05:39, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Note Cirt is one of the most enthusiastic and hardest workers on Misplaced Pages. However the sources he has found are still just reviews of the show, not enough to establish notability by Misplaced Pages:Notability (films). (Newspapers print TV reviews everyday. Should WP have an article on every show that has ever been aired? It could.) Also the discussion is about the notability of the subject of the article, the BBC documentary. Not the subject of the documentary. No one questions the notability of that. Wolfview (talk) 06:53, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep per Cirt, and WP:N, WP:V, and WP:NOTFILM. Clearly notable, with plenty of references, and the title of the documentary is the title, so claims about title POV, and that it requires proving that the family is the most hated, have no legs. Also, the family calls themselves the most hated family in America (or US) . The article discusses the reception of the documentary by the press in great detail, and has more than sufficient reliable sources to it's notability apart from that of the family. The article was somewhat lacking at the time of nomination, but it now passes the bar set by WP:NOTFILM and per WP:HEY. The family, BBC, Theroux, and the film are all independently notable. Remarkable job done by Cirt. — Becksguy (talk) 07:33, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Note I was not seriously saying the article should be deleted because of the title. My comment was a joke. I also think the title is a little bit of a joke considering Theroux's interest in the weird and eccentric. I also am not against the film at all, although I have never seen it. Anyway if the article is kept it will not do WP any harm, just make readers do a lot of extra work reading an article on a non-notable subject. They would do better to spend their time going to the website where it is posted and watch the film itself. (I already suggested an external link on the articles on Phelps and his church.)Wolfview (talk) 13:59, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
I also did not mention the Bush family by name. :-) Wolfview (talk) 21:33, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete - a couple of lines on Louis Theroux would be plenty for this its bigger than the whole program was, excessive coverage indeed, perhaps release it as the extended version of the program. Off2riorob (talk) 12:06, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep per added references. I was hesitant to keep at first since my own search engine test did not reveal much online coverage of this documentary film. However, the new references from offline validate the topic's notability. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:17, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep - I hate fucking deletionist fuckbags - this bullshit is what drove me and tens of thousands like me away from our erstwhile glorious and beloved Misplaced Pages. Fuck 'em. --AStanhope (talk) 02:47, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Sorry to hear that. I don't think this is a bad article. It's just that it's better to use sources to write articles on notable topics, not write articles on the sources themselves. Wolfview (talk) 05:09, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Categories: