Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Atheist Experience (2nd nomination)

Add links
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 keep. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:25, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Atheist Experience

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
The Atheist Experience (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is remarkably short on reliable, relevant sources. We have:

Plainly, about 90% of these can be discarded without much further discussion. The rest doesn't amount to much — a few disparate mentions in vaguely reliable sources don't constitute the "significant coverage" mandated by WP:GNG. And no, a newspaper or a website conferring an award does not necessarily imply notability — we don't have articles on every restaurant, nightclub or hair salon so honored, and we shouldn't have one on this show, unless demonstrably significant coverage turns up. - Biruitorul Talk 15:30, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I've gotta get ready for work and don't have time to comb the internets, but I will point out that the so-called "puff piece in a local newspaper reprinted by an activist site" is actually significant coverage from the Austin American-Statesman, the leading mainstream newspaper in Texas's capital city, and that's one reliable source in a defense here. Agreed that most of the links you cite don't pass muster in an AfD debate, which is not to say they are inappropriate to use. The two Austin Chronicle awards also should have a little bit of clout in an examination here. I'm definitely leaning towards the Keep end of the spectrum, just on that. Carrite (talk) 15:45, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Atheism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Your representation of some of the sources are quite the understatement. Allow me to comment on your depiction of a few sources a bit.
All in all, TAE doesn't nearly belong in the category of 'every restaurant, nightclub or hair salon' as you put it. --Pereant antiburchius (talk) 09:37, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please see WP:COATRACK. Yes, a Gallup or Pew poll is probably citable; that is not the issue. The problem is that they do not talk about The Atheist Experience, and so are not that relevant, contextually, to the topic at hand.
  • I agree, these polls are not there to support WP:NOTABILITY, but to support claims about demographics. However, in your opening statement you brought up the case "Plainly, about 90% of these can be discarded without much further discussion", mentioning a few of these sources. Therefore, I had to reply. --Pereant antiburchius (talk) 18:07, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you're going with WP:SELFPUB, I think we're OK, because it was only citing his presence at the show. Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the requirement in the case of self-published sources that they be published experts in the field, so long as: the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim; it does not involve claims about third parties; it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source; there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; the article is not based primarily on such sources. --Pereant antiburchius (talk) 17:36, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:14, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - added four more sources
  • A random video saying nothing about TAE, a student newspaper article, another video attesting nothing (except that a TAE host once gave a speech) and a university press release. Overall, pretty weak. - Biruitorul Talk 19:42, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article does have plenty of reliable sources, but they're not about the show, except for the two local newspaper sources. -- 202.124.72.227 (talk) 01:36, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - By no means a strong case but it does seem that this article subject rises to the level of public significance and media footprint necessary to connote notability. Benefit of the doubt... Carrite (talk) 17:31, 9 June 2012 (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.
  1. ^ Understanding Peer Reviewed, Benedictine University, Retrieved 2012-06-02
  2. ^ WTAMU Lecture to Debate Christian and Atheist Doctrines, West Texas A&M University, Retrieved 2012-06-02
  3. ^ The Source of Human Morality Debate, University of Maryland, Baltimore County, Retrieved 2012-06-02
  4. ^ New group helps students understand atheism, University Star, Retrieved 2012-06-02
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Atheist_Experience_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1054360009"