Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The City Addicted to Crystal Meth

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 / 00:17, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The City Addicted to Crystal Meth

(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 encyclopedic 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 16:36, 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]

Redirect or Merge, per above. WuhWuzDat 16:38, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well sourced and has reviews. Dwanyewest (talk) 20:34, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^comment 00:53, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Same as the others. Click the Google news link at the top of the AFD, plenty of notable news sources reviewing this documentary. Why not just combine all these nominations together, since the argument is all the same? They all get ample coverage, and are made by the same person. Dream Focus 02:17, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Same as others, the point is not "is it cited", the point is "is it notable" and I don't see that. Sources do not equate to notability, and just because it appeared on TV does not mean that it is notable. Sven Manguard _Talk 03:23, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its notable enough for major news sites to give detailed reviews about it. That is how these things work. Dream Focus 05:01, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, every major newspaper has staff members that review television specials for a living. Just about every documentary, straight to tv movie, special episode, ect. gets reviewed. What I want to see is some sort of lasting impact. Did it cause a political scandal, inspire community action, heck, did the documentary win any awards? Even being played again isn't a sign of notability per se, but was it brought back for popular demand? Did school systems across the country buy copies for their libraries. Give me so meting other than "It was played on TV" and "reviewed by the TV review people." Please? Sven Manguard _Talk 06:59, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You don't seem to understand our notability guideline. Neither fame nor importance is required. Just sources. If these sources are written by professional journalists then they are ample for our needs. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:04, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From N: "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article. For example, such an article may violate what Wikipedia is not.

My interperetation of existing policy, backed up by many other examples, is that episodes in a series do not get pages unless they are notable independent of the series or have a substantial individual importance to the series. Look at List of Stargate SG-1 episodes. That shows how few episodes get pages. Now look at Louis Theroux's BBC 2 Specials, of which this documentry is part of the series. This article should be a part of Louis Theroux's BBC 2 Specials in the way that any non-key episodes of SG1 are in List of Stargate SG-1 episodes. This article, for all intents and purposes, is an episode in a series of documenteries, and should be treated as a non-key episode. That means no page, and a redirect/merge. It isn't notable, even with the sources. Sven Manguard _Talk 20:54, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article is notable per requirements of WP:N and has been significantly expanded since the AfD listing. - Hydroxonium (talk) 15:14, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep noteability well established. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:03, 6 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.