Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/America's Medicated Kids

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. /ƒETCH COMMS / 00:18, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

America's Medicated Kids

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

Tiny article (one line) about a noted documentary artists' much less known documentary. No encylcopedic value, as Wikipedia is not the TV guide. Would not be opposed to a merge with Louis Theroux, although there is only one line of content here, so there is little to actually merge. Would not be opposed to a redirect to Louis Theroux if merge is rejected. Sven Manguard _Talk 16:33, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Subject is also covered adequately at Louis Theroux's BBC 2 Specials. Content is mostly the same. Would not object to merge or redirect to that page either. Sven Manguard _Talk 16:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep found a source and I am sure there are more per WP:BEFORE Dwanyewest (talk) 23:06, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^converse 00:45, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Click the Google news link at the top of the AFD and you see ample coverage in notable news sources. Wikipedia is not paper, there no shortage of space. No reason why the information can't be in more than once place. Here in its own article, it can be expanded. That's normally how things are done. Dream Focus 01:37, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument borders on WP:NOHARM which I don't think is exactly persuasive. Sven Manguard _Talk 03:16, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you prove that it exists, and that it got basic coverage from sites that give basic coverage to every single program that appears on televison. Still have not demonstrated notability. All the sources in the world can be added and if the article still does not demonstrate notability it is going to be rightfully deleted. Sven Manguard _Talk 03:16, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Sun and other articles give ample coverage, it not just a brief mention. Dream Focus 05:23, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now there more than adequate sources for this article to assert notability. Such as reviews from reliable newspapers and coverage of the subject matter for it to be kept. All this article needs is better writing. Dwanyewest (talk) 04:50, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how notability works. Did the show have any lasting effects, force changes, cause a scandal. Did it become a best seller? Everyone notices a gunshot, but if all the bullet ever does is fly through the air, and never causes any damage, ten seconds later everyone moves on. Media outlets notice documentries, but if they are don't do/cause anything special, they aren't notable.

Think of this as how Wikipedia handles popular shows like The Simpsons. There exists a list of episodes with short summaries, but only the best know, most popluar, and award winning episodes have their own pages. For the equivalent here Louis Theroux's BBC 2 Specials is your episode list and The Most Hated Family in America is that special once in a season episode with its own page.

Do you see where I am coming from, at least? Sven Manguard _Talk 07:06, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, being a bestseller doesn't make it notable, only reviews in at least two places make something notable according to the ridiculous notability guidelines. Bestselling novels have been deleted because no one could find any reviews of them. If the documentary was notable enough to get ample news coverage, then its notable. This isn't someone in the news once for running over someone famous, or killing a thief with a sword. This documentary was reviewed. Dream Focus 07:11, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it says that the sources mean it is presumed notable, but leaves editors room to say it isn't. Since my premise is that this is an episode in a series of documentaries, and that the series is notable but individual episodes are, with few exceptions, not notable, I am also within the guidelines. I also find the concept of bestsellers not being sourced preposterous. At the very least, there will be sources tracking its sales, which are just as valid as many of the sources in this series of articles. Sven Manguard _Talk 20:31, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article has been expanded and shown to have significant coverage in mainstream news media and satisfies WP:N with reliable sources per WP:RS. - Hydroxonium (talk) 15:04, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 5 October 2010 (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.