Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Titanic: The Legend Lives On
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 no consensus. There was no consensus for deletion. Further, the content of the articles can be verified so there is no failure of compliance with WP:V. OTOH the pages lack the secondary sources that would ordinarily be looked for to achieve notability. However, secondary sources do exist out there, here for example. There seems no need for separate pages and a combined article may help notability, and allow the DVD to be incorporated. Consequently, I am going to boldly merge and rename the pages as Titanic: The Complete Story as suggested during the AfD. If reliable secondary sources are not added in a reasonable time, for example during the next three months, then no objection can be taken to it being relisted. TerriersFan (talk) 01:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Titanic: The Legend Lives On
A two-part documentary about the RMS Titanic; does not seem to pass WP:N. The articles are unsourced, and Google reveals a number of blogs, private homepages, video shop sites, but no substantial independent sources. If no one else finds such sources, the film is not suitable for an article. Tagged with {{notability}} since June 2007. B. Wolterding (talk) 15:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Also listing the second part: Titanic: Death of a Dream (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
- Delete - No independant coverage. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 16:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep both (but Merge for reasons I'll explain in a moment) for the same reason I voted to keep that Super Comet documentary that was AFD'd earlier. Productions made by national networks are inherently notable, and this production has also been released to home video. Possible WEB bias against a production that predated the rise of the Internet; not every production is going to have webpages devoted to them. If "Death of a Dream" is simply the first chapter and not an independent production, then these two articles should be Merged as there's no need to have separate articles; merge them under the Titanic: Death of a Dream title as we should use the first-chapter title. If they're separate productions, then keep them separate. 23skidoo (talk) 16:01, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- I do not agree that "productions made by national networks" are inherently notable. As an encyclopedia, we need independent sources in order to write about these productions, Internet or not. That's not "WEB bias", but if one calls it "systematic bias against unencyclopedic topics", I'd agree. --B. Wolterding (talk) 16:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. That rule was created in order to keep things like homemade productions and "things made up in school one day" out of Wikipedia. Anything made by a national network, whether it has a million things written about it or 1, is notable by its very existence. Such rules are in place to keep nonexistent items off the Wikipedia. If this production does not exist, then I'm willing to change my vote to "delete as hoax". 23skidoo (talk) 22:08, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, but WP:N does not guarantee anything to be notable "by its very existence". The question is not whether the film exists, but whether someone independent of the producer has substantially written about it. --B. Wolterding (talk) 08:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. That rule was created in order to keep things like homemade productions and "things made up in school one day" out of Wikipedia. Anything made by a national network, whether it has a million things written about it or 1, is notable by its very existence. Such rules are in place to keep nonexistent items off the Wikipedia. If this production does not exist, then I'm willing to change my vote to "delete as hoax". 23skidoo (talk) 22:08, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- I do not agree that "productions made by national networks" are inherently notable. As an encyclopedia, we need independent sources in order to write about these productions, Internet or not. That's not "WEB bias", but if one calls it "systematic bias against unencyclopedic topics", I'd agree. --B. Wolterding (talk) 16:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep, but merge This is a pretty notable documentary about the ship, especially because it features commentary from not only famous Titanic historians, but includes interviews with survivors. I would say merge the two articles, because they're part of the same documentary, I believe. If additional information is needed (ie, survivors and historians interviewed and the like) I have the documentary on DVD and can supply any additional information necessary. Morhange (talk) 01:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- The article mentions it is now available from History Channel Home Video on a single DVD, "Titanic: The Complete Story", so if a merger happens, the article should be listed at Titanic: The Complete Story Morhange (talk) 01:30, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 19:57, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep, but rename "Titanic: The Complete Story" Documentary included these two segments and also "Beyond Titanic". Faith (talk) 07:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Weak delete: The Titanic is obviously an encyclopædic topic, but is every major documentary about it also encyclopædic? If I open a print encyclopædia, I'd expect to see a full-length article on the Titanic, one or more articles on related topics, a brief article on the movie, and no mention at all of the documentaries unless they uncover some fact previously unknown that alters the consensus view of what caused the accident. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 06:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Merge as above, without prejudice for later deleting the merged article, because I'm not really convinced that this documentary, even if well made and interesting, is notable. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC).
- Delete This is a non-notable documentary. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 13:56, 18 May 2008 (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.
