Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Most Hated Family in America

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. No sense in keeping this open any longer, per IAR NW (Talk) 03:50, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Most Hated Family in America

(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. This is a single TV show. Although, like most such shows it has been given coverage in notable reliable news media, it by its very nature is not notable or a proper topic for an encyclopedia article according to Wikipedia:Notability (films). 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)[reply]

Keep. Perhaps the nominator did not perform the due diligence to do a simple check for WP:NOTE? This article's subject definitely amply satisfies WP:NOTE, as it has "received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources". This includes: a total of 70 results in search of articles at NewsBank archives, 67 results in check at LexisNexis, 51 results in search of Westlaw archives, over 30 results in search of news articles via Google News Archives, and additional sources from search of web hits. (Search terms I used was a simple parameter string: "Theroux" AND "The Most Hated Family in America") Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 16:19, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I just reviewed Wikipedia: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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —-- Cirt (talk) 17:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —-- Cirt (talk) 17:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —-- Cirt (talk) 17:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. —-- Cirt (talk) 17:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. —-- Cirt (talk) 17:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —-- Cirt (talk) 17:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - although I think that some review material, like perhaps from the Daily Record here or The Age here would probably be useful. John Carter (talk) 17:59, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is most deffinetly notable. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 21:40, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
mumble per Wolfview's reply above at 16:33 today, unless and until references to reliable sources actually appear in the article. — $Jeff G. ツ$ 22:20, 14 September 2010 (UTC) (replaced by the following)[reply]
Keep - Cirt has done an excellent job of researching and documenting reliable sources for this article so far, so I am changing my opinion from "Delete" (replaced by "mumble" above so as not to confuse the bots). — $Jeff G. ツ$ 11:56, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless objective reliable sources can be provided that the family is most hated. The title seems to represent the the POV of Louis Theroux and perhaps other jounralists. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:56, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

:-) = "joke" Wolfview (talk) 02:18, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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}^{concerning my deeds.} 23:27, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cirt and Backtable. MtD (talk) 01:06, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

I'll be the first to thank him if he can show that this is notable.Wolfview (talk) 02:23, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Weaponbb7 (talk · contribs), for the kind words. Much appreciated. -- Cirt (talk) 02:30, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, clearly notable per Cirt. AFD is not Cleanup. And the claims about title POV are simply ridiculous, it's an article on a documentary, clearly the article name must be that of the show. Strange Passerby (talk) 02:30, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

No doubt, but what does that have to do with the notability of the article? MtD (talk) 02:59, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought an AfD was about the notability of the subject, not the article. Wolfview (talk) 06:53, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Obvious keeper, per Cirt. It's been in a lot of the British dailies, for starters - Alison ^❤ 03:54, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I have done some significant expansion work on the article [1]. State of article at time of AFD nomination [2], state of article after expansion work [3]. 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)[reply]
Time to close this thing as a speedy keep or similar. MtD (talk) 05:04, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the kind words! Most appreciated. :) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 05:04, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —-- Cirt (talk) 05:39, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note Cirt is one of the most enthusiastic and hardest workers on Wikipedia. However the sources he has found are still just reviews of the show, not enough to establish notability by Wikipedia: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)[reply]
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) [4]. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I also did not mention the Bush family by name. :-) Wolfview (talk) 21:33, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
- Your personal opinion on how much coverage the program received or how it was made is irrelevant here. I fail to see how "excessive coverage" is actually a delete reasoning. Strange Passerby (talk) 12:10, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I asked this user to revisit their AFD comment, after the subsequent improvements to this article page. This was the response diff. -- Cirt (talk) 20:16, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 Wikipedia. Fuck 'em. --AStanhope (talk) 02:47, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

AStanhope, please assume good faith. This animosity helps no one. The appropriate step is to defend the given topic, as it has been done here. Erik (talk | contribs) 10:57, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That animosity helps me. I laughed. The most severe deletionist behavior is a "f*** you" via actions instead of words.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 20:42, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources available through a diligent WP:BEFORE that show the film's notability per WP:NF and it's WP:POTENTIAL for improvement through regular editing. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:39, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —-- Cirt (talk) 18:26, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Meets criteria of notability as it has engendered a great following in the media and with the public, is well documented and it appears to have the support of the majority of the wiki editors responding to this query. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:31, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —-- Cirt (talk) 18:38, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems notable enough to me. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:54, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets the requirements of WP:N and is a worthwhile and encyclopedic topic for an article. - Ahunt (talk) 18:57, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a good television documentary will create its own notability by the public and press reaction it gets, which this one certainly did. MilborneOne (talk) 19:03, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Thanks to the good efforts of User:Cirt for expanding this article.It shows that it doesn't fail WP:N. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 19:21, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In light of the above justifications, anything I write here will be redundant. Jclemens (talk) 20:35, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jclemens.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 20:42, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - well cited and well written. Dwanyewest (talk) 23:28, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per WP:SNOW, seems the nominator was a tad hasty. Many thanks to Cirt for rescuing this article! bahamut0013^words _deeds 23:43, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin: I would rather this not be closed as "speedy" at this point in time, and at the very least, please not as a WP:Non-admin closure. I tried asking the original AFD nominator to reconsider/revisit his "delete" position, but the response was at best unclear [5]. -- Cirt (talk) 02:24, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree, and second Cirt. It's better to follow the book in contentious subject areas. — Becksguy (talk) 04:29, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, appreciated. -- Cirt (talk) 04:30, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I really like what has been done to the article. Considering how there is much more information on the article and the sources have been multiplied by, last time I checked, eight, I'm definitely in support of keeping it (although I voted to keep it in the first place). Backtable _{Speak to me}^{concerning my deeds.} 03:18, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to something boring like The Most Hated Family in America (documentary film) Even if there is no other documentary film by this exact title, the title unduly attacks the family and draws attention to itself. When I saw the title in a list of AFD's, I clicked because I thought that this was an attack article on some truly important family, like the Kennedys. It turns out that the title of the film is just a gimmick to draw attention to some crackpots in a tiny little church. I actually belong to an institution they picketed, we all got emails that week advising us to ignore them on our way into the building. Let's not let the title help them draw the attention they crave for their vile activities. AMuseo (talk) 12:28, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Completely oppose such a rename, there is no other title on Wikipedia by this same name, and no disambiguation is needed. Further, such a discussion should take place, at the article's talk page. -- Cirt (talk) 14:16, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Totally agree with Cirt. Absolutely no reason for such an unnecessary disambiguation. As with the other editor I told above, your personal opinion on the programme's title is not relevant here. Strange Passerby (talk) 15:23, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you, Strange Passerby, much appreciated. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 15:24, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. —-- Cirt (talk) 15:06, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —-- Cirt (talk) 15:06, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Many reliable and verifiable sources about the subject. Binksternet (talk) 15:45, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's pretty obvious at this point. Nice job Cirt. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 06:34, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable and appropriately named. The nomination ~~still says~~ originally said "No secondary sources are given in the article." which rather implies a failure to try and source the article before nominating it for deletion. As Cirt has demonstrated there are plenty of sources out there, so please remember that AFD is not a cleanup tag, and make a good faith attempt to source an article before trying to delete it. Ϣere SpielChequers 12:47, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have updated the nomination per a request from Cirt. I am waiting for some of the personal comments about myself to also be struck out or corrected. Wolfview (talk) 19:56, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the strikeout of the inaccurate comments, post-remedy to address those made through improvements to the article page itself. -- Cirt (talk) 20:02, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wolfview, I didn't think your comment about the title was anything but humor. It's good to keep one's sense of humor when the temperature rises a bit. Another user did vote to delete based on the title, however, and it was that argument I was responding to. Sorry I wasn't more clear. I also didn't mention any particular family names. :-) — Becksguy (talk) 02:32, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment. Wolfview (talk) 04:20, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:N and WP:V. Loads of independent coverage. Jarkeld (talk) 22:25, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Astanhope. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:34, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Doubts about notability have been more than taken care of by User:Cirts hard work. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 09:07, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cirt. Şłџğģő 09:11, 20 September 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.