Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Louis and the Nazis


 * 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:30, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Louis and the Nazis

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

While this has somewhat more content than the other AfDs in this series, it still only has one source, an IMDB source that only certifies that this program exists. The article fails to establish any type of notablilty. As in the other articles I nominated for deletion in this series, I would not be opposed to a redirect or merge to Louis Theroux or Louis Theroux's BBC 2 Specials. The content is already in place in full in Louis Theroux's BBC 2 Specials anyways. Sven Manguard Talk  16:51, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, not significantly covered by RS. Peter Karlsen (talk) 19:17, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment, I am a pathetic person. I have actually seen this documentary. It was a very good and well made documentary. It was also very provocative, like most of documentaries in Louis Theroux's Weird Weekends. Unfortunately I would have to agree that this article is very meagre (to say the least). Please expand this article so it can be saved. Alternatively include the titles in the article on Weird Weekends and add a synopsis. --JHvW (talk) 21:22, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Another program of his, that seems to be a part of the same series, (The Most Hated Family in America) was shown to be notable and kept. I am sure the same could be done here. (Just don't ask me to waste my time doing it. :-) ) Borock (talk) 21:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The fact that one program in a series had enough coverage in reliable sources to be notable sets no precedent regarding other programs, since each receives varying levels of media coverage. Peter Karlsen (talk) 23:00, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The number of sources available on a subject should not trump inherent notability. Is the documentary notable, or is it not? LordAmeth (talk) 21:56, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep found a source and I am sure there are more. Dwanyewest (talk) 22:07, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Neither of those sources actually mention "Louis and the Nazis" at all. Peter Karlsen (talk) 22:57, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I would simply remove them as inappropriate references not verifying the preceding text, except that it's generally considered bad practice for editors supporting deletion in an AFD to remove purported sources. Peter Karlsen (talk) 23:05, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Too bad about that, I just deleted them without reading your post. I have no intention of undoing it, as I find the idea that someone would use irrelivent sources to try and save an article from deletion to be an insult to our intelligence. Bad practice on my part, maybe. Bad practice on his, unquestionably. And his work is usually much better. This is beneath his normal behavior. Sven Manguard  Talk  02:49, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Assume good faith. I don't think he was trying to insult your intelligence by his use of irrelivent sources.  They are references to the statement that the guy revisited people from this documentary in his book, and are thus relevant to that statement.   D r e a m Focus  12:22, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for rescue by the Article Rescue Squadron.    Snotty Wong   talk 00:53, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The websites I used refer to the book. The Call of the Weird: Travels in American Subcultures is a book Louis Theroux revisits people he previously interviewed for the Weird Weekends documentaries. Hence why I used the sources. Dwanyewest (talk) 04:57, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. No Reliable Sources. IMDB is user-editable and does not nor has it ever qualified as reliable here. -- ۩ M ask  16:31, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Source from New Zealand Listener Dwanyewest (talk) 16:45, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * ...that's just a review. That falls under trivial. The standard is (or used to be phrased as) multiple non-trivial third party references. A game guide or show review is trivial. A newspaper article discussing the impact a show had on a certain town or culture would be an example of a non-trivial reference. The standard isn't 'we can verify this exists', it's 'we can say this is important enough for an entry in an encyclopedia'. -- ۩ M ask  17:56, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think it does fall under trivial. If it is notable enough to be reviewed (and to be reviewed by a publication from the other side of the world), then that should count for something. LordAmeth (talk) 21:56, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. That is a notable review.   D r e a m Focus  12:12, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Seemingly notable within the genre/field of documentaries on white supremacy and neo-Nazism in contemporary US society. Just because an article is not long enough yet, or does not have enough sources listed yet does not mean that the subject is inherently non-notable. Rather than prodding it for deletion, why don't you (you, whoever it is that prodded it to begin with) go out there and find some more sources to prop it up? Let's give the documentary, the article, and the contributor(s) who created the article the benefit of the doubt. LordAmeth (talk) 21:56, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep It gets a complete review at one media source found, and most likely others, since his other notable documentaries receive greater coverage.  D r e a m Focus  12:12, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The documentary appears to have been used as a source for a Doctoral dissertation undertaken by a student at the University of Tennessee. This isn't quite the same as peer-reviewed material and the dissertation concerns Prussian Blue not the documentary itself.  Does this help establish notability at all?  Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 12:00, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * There's also a review from the TV section of The Guardian and another from The Times. Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 12:28, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep simply notable.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:13, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment This article has television review which demonstrates significant coverage it merely needs better writing and editing. Dwanyewest (talk) 00:28, 11 October 2010 (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.