Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Mark Waters 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 delete. ✗ plicit  23:44, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

The Mark Waters Story

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Article about a television documentary film, not properly sourced as passing our notability criteria for films or television content. The notability claim here is essentially that the film existed, with no apparent evidence (noteworthy awards, critical attention, etc.) of any significant distinctions, and the article is "referenced" to a raw unfootnoted list of citations that aren't support for notability: two of the three come from media outlets that were directly involved in the creation of the film, and thus aren't independent of the film for the purposes of helping to validate its significance, while the third is a person's self-published personal website rather than a GNG-worthy media outlet. None of this is enough to establish notability. Bearcat (talk) 20:31, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:31, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:31, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:31, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:IAR and WP:CREEP. I’m unable to see how the encyclopedia or reader experience is improved by following the destructive Afd and notability guidelines which indicate this and many other informative and factually accurate articles about topics with verifiable existence need to be deleted. The guidelines need to be revamped to remove their destructive effects, but in the meantime we must simply ignore them per IAR, a pillar policy. —В²C ☎ 16:16, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * IAR is not a free "get out of ever actually having to follow any rules at all" pass. The reader experience would not be improved by waiving any requirement for our articles to be independently sourced or pass any notability criteria — the end result of that would be that we wouldn't be an encyclopedia anymore, but a free public relations platform for people to just write anything they damn please without regard to whether the information was accurate or even interesting. IF we waive sourcing rules, for example, then people can lie in Wikipedia articles because they don't have to cite any sources to verify anything — and if we waive notability rules, then we have to keep an article about every single person or thing that ever existed at all. Bearcat (talk) 18:35, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:11, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - Doesn't pass GNG or WP:NFILM. Also, it has been citation-less for 10 years. It's not even in IMDb. If it's not notable enough for anyone to ever put a citation on it, or add it to IMDb, it doesn't need to be in Wikipedia. Platonk (talk) 23:18, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete It does exist, but I can't say anything more about it. Just because it's a film doesn't make it notable - I don't see how this is more notable than the article in Readers Digest July 1966 it is based on. User:力 (powera,  π,  ν ) 23:50, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - per nom fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:25, 4 December 2021 (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.