Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Farrah's Story


 * 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. — Aitias // discussion  00:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Farrah's Story
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This article is literally three lines long, and there isn't anything said here that wasn't already said in its section in the Farrah Fawcett article. After verifying that, I redirected this to the main article. It was undone as "a good start for an article", but nothing has been added either by the undoer or anyone else. The undoer also did not reply to my question about his actions on his talk page. I'd like to avoid a wheel war, so I'd like a community consensus on what should be done with the article. MSJapan (talk) 15:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep there's a good deal of apparently non-trivial coverage of this documentary. Full reviews in several mainstream papers. Nominator appears to think the article should go because it's too short... but article length isn't part of inclusion criteria. --Chiliad22 (talk) 17:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment No, I think it should go because the entirety of what is encyclopedically known about this program is a whopping three lines - most of that other coverage is more pertinent to Farrah herself, not the documentary, or it comes out of things like "Gossip Weekly". A simple list of Google hits says nothing about depth of coverage or the pertinence of that coverage. MSJapan (talk) 20:47, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Did you look at the results? There are articles about this documentary in many publications. "'Farrah's Story' is hard-hitting" - review in Boston Globe. "Farrah's story: Where Hollywood fears to tread" - Review in Minneapolis Star-Tribune. "NBC Considers Another Farrah Fawcett Special" - New York Times. "Farrah Fawcett's TV special doesn't really tell her story, producer says" - article about the documentary in LA Times. This is pretty blatant coverage... other than stubbornness I'm not sure why you're missing it. The article needs improvement, but that's not a reason to delete it... it's a reason to edit it. This is Wikipedia after all. --Chiliad22 (talk) 21:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and improve. A truckload of sources exist. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  —Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:19, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete/merge Fragmentation. The documentary is only of interest in the context of her biography. DGG (talk) 01:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Uh, the movie Some Kind of Monster (film) is "only of interest" in the context of a biography on Metallica. By this logic we could never have an article on a documentary, since they're almost all about some notable topic. Also, we can't delete and merge due to the GPL... an admin should know that. --Chiliad22 (talk) 03:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - as to the general question of whether we should have seperate articles on documentary films vs. merging them into an article on the subject of the documentary... that needs to be determined by whether the film has become notable in its own right, not on whether the subject is notable. In this case, we need to established that the film "Farrah's Story" can meet the requirements laid out in the WP:Notability (films) guideline. If this can be done, then we should have an article on it.  If not, then merge it into the article on Farrah herself. Blueboar (talk) 15:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I've already done that by mentioning several articles about this documentary. --Chiliad22 (talk) 16:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Have you incorporated these sources into the article? If not please do. Blueboar (talk) 21:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Why? That's not a requirement for keeping the article. The sources just have to be shown to exist. -Chiliad22 (talk) 22:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep and help to improve. PTorg (talk) 14:12, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 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.