Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nostradamus Effect


 * 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. ✗ plicit  23:42, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Nostradamus Effect

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

Current sources are all passing mentions, the show itself, or about the "Nostradamus effect" as a concept and have nothing to do with the show whatsoever. A blogspot blog critical of the show is also linked, violating WP:SELFPUB. Hits on ProQuest and Newspapers.com were only passing mentions in fluff pieces critical of the History Channel, or TV Guide listings. Zero reliable sourcing found. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:43, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:43, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: I understand the reason for the nomination.  I do hope we can find sources to preserve it, just to have an easy way for internet users to know this series is a bunch of bunkum.  When I was young somehow I stumbled across The Man Who Saw Tomorrow on cable TV and it transfixed me, there was no wikipedia to tell me it was a bunch of horseshit, and I really sorta believed that stuff for a number of years.  Indeed, even now I believe Nostradamus predicted that if this article is deleted, the same thing will happen to more impressionable young minds.  Century 6, quatrain 8 clearly says "Those who were in the realm for knowledge (internet searchers), Will become impoverished at the change of King (the deletion), Some exiled without support (no citations), having no gold (no sources that pass GNG), The lettered and letters will not be at a high premium (the article and its readers will not be valued)."  Don't let this prediction become true!!--Milowent • hasspoken  13:39, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep: While not high art or something that would have produced fervent discussion at the time of airing, the show was still on a major network and is still hosted on major streaming services to this day (currently on Hulu). Deleting this show would suggest that about 40% of the show articles linked in the "History original programming" navigation list should be deleted for similar levels of notability (of course, doing just this could be argued, but would likely require be a larger discussion). A MINOTAUR (talk) 17:29, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * So your argument is "keep it because other shows exist, and because sourcing is merely optional." Got it. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:59, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * If you'd like to improve the quality of the article's listed sourcing you're welcome to do so yourself or request someone else to do so. Another user below us has done just that which seems to be an acceptable level of sourcing to me. It's a matter of putting a little effort into it. A MINOTAUR (talk) 14:20, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * "Improve the quality" with what? The sources I didn't find at all? You can't make something from nothing. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 16:17, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.  The abstract notes: "The television series Nostradamus Effect, shows many different theories about how would be the end of the world. It emphasized the year 2012 following the knowledge of several cultures as Mayans, Hopis, Christianity and Islamic fundamentalism, it tries to reflect on pictures the surmises that will lead us to the end of our days." The article notes from Google Translate: "At the end of 2009 and beginning of 2010, the History Channel broadcast for the first time in the United States, the documentary series, The Nostradamus Effect, a compendium of twelve episodes dedicated to capturing in images what the end of the world would be like according to the prophetic arguments of ancient cultures and that have reached our days. ... Another trend within the series is to make the viewer see how a rational, studious and advanced person in his time is capable of believing, appreciating and developing his own theories about what lies ahead for humanity. Episodes 3 and 8 expose us to the investigations of Leonardo da Vinci and Sir Isaac Newton respectively. Finally, and in correspondence with the majority beliefs of the target to whom the documentary series is focused, we find several personifications of Christian culture, as well as the recreation of decisive moments that are exemplified with attacks, natural catastrophes and recent epidemics."   The review notes: "If you're looking for a way to start teaching your kids the very important task of how to assess credibility, Nostradamus Effect is a fine place to start ... but then you'd have to actually watch it, and that may not be a worthwhile trade-off. Most of the talking heads featured on the show have no academic background, and much of their "proof" is based on segments of sentences in larger works that sound eerily omniscient but are in fact so vague that they could mean all kinds of things. All of which is accompanied by spooky music and effects and ominous pronouncements ..."   This is an article from a student newspaper at Western Illinois University. The review notes: "As it turns out, The History Channel can be pretty captivating. Last week a “Nostradamus Effect” episode revealed that Isaac Newton claimed a secret prophecy of the world ending in 2060. ... But alas, I was captivated by The History Channel’s crappy reenactments and distorted voiceovers, hypnotized like watching Lifetime, where everything is such a train wreck that I can’t look away. Between booming Bible passages and historic information about Newton, the narrator warns that this episode “only presents the facts.” If you can get over the dude portraying Newton reading books and playing with his hair, the facts are pretty intriguing."   The article notes: ""The Nostradamus Effect" explores apocalyptic prophecies such as Nostradamus' claim that three antichrists would plague mankind. Some believe clues hidden in Nostradamus' writings point to Napoleon Bonaparte and Adolf Hitler being the first two antichrists, but the third one remains a mystery."  Less significant coverage:<ol> <li> The article notes: "Nostradamus Effect. History, 7 p.m. Was Nostradamus truly omniscient or just a boastful know-it-all? This series examines both possibilities, though leans mostly toward the conclusion that the French seer was astoundingly accurate with most of the prophecies he made more than 450 years ago. Tonight's episode, for example, examines Nostradamus's famous prediction of Adolf Hitler rising to power in Germany in the thirties and forties. A panel of historians painstakingly deconstruct the prognostication, which included such minutiae as the fact that three of Hitler's own officers would attempt to kill him. Eerie stuff." </li> <li> The article notes: "9 P.M. (History) NOSTRADAMUS EFFECT The prophet Nostradamus predicted the arrival of three anti-Christs who would wreak havoc on mankind. For those who believe the prophecy, clues suggest that Napoleon may have been the first and Hitler the second. But who is the third? This series premiere speculates." </li> <li> The book provides three sentences of coverage about the subject. The book notes: "In 2009, the History Channel even went one step beyond its frequent specials about apocalyptic prophecies and devoted an entire weekly series called The Nostradamus Effect to end-time predictions. The premise of the show is the investigation of whether the tumultuous world events of the 2000s might have been predicted by seers like Nostradamus, Edgar Cayce, the Chinese I-Ching divination techniques, the Tibetan Book of the Dead, the Oracle of Delphi, and various others throughout history. If reasonable signs seem to suggest that more than one of these ancient seers appeared to have foretold the problems of the modern world, the show asks if one may give the doomsday prophecies some credence because of this sort of future-casting triangulation method." </li> <li> The book provides one sentence of coverage about the subject. The book notes: "The channel has been subject to criticism by scientists, historians, and skeptics for airing sensational programming such as Ancient Aliens (2010–), UFO Hunters (2008–2009), Brad Meltzer's Decoded (2010–2012), and Nostradamus Effect (2009), which has been labeled as fiction and absurdity." </li> <li> The article provides one sentence of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "Nostradamus Decoded Discovery, 7.30pm NOSTRA-BLOODY-DAMUS again? As if it's not enough that the History Channel is running a whole series about him (The Nostradamus Effect, Mondays, 7.30pm), here we have two more hours of typical Discovery mystery-mongering on the subject." </li> <li> The book provides one sentence of coverage about the subject. The book notes: "One rainy Sunday afternoon, I sat glued to The History Channel (back when The History Channel used to broadcast actual documentaries about actual history — rather than serving up pseudo-documentary fare like "UFO Hunters," "Nostradamus Effect," and "Ancient Aliens"), binge watching a series on military aircraft." </li> <li> The article provides one sentence of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "And it should go without saying -- but sadly doesn't -- that shows about pseudoscience (History Channel's The Nostradamus Effect and Ancient Aliens, for example) are also not the answer." </li> <li> The article provides one sentence of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "But History -- having dispensed with the shackles of history as a niche -- has also been an early adopter, yielding programs like the self-explanatory "Nostradamus Effect," "Armageddon" and "Apocalypse Island" (no relation to "Temptation Island"), a special about Mayan predictions of cataclysmic events occurring in 2012." </li> <li> The article provides one sentence of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "Or turn on the History Channel, and you might catch repeats of The Nostradamus Effect, a show that explored apocalyptic prophecies throughout history, with episodes bearing titles like “The Third Anti-Christ?” and “Armageddon Battle Plan.”" </li> <li> The article provides one sentence of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "The network’s other greenlighted series are “WWII in HD,” which restores thousands of hours of archival footage into HD; “MysteryQuest,” in which modern science tackles ancient myths; and the prophecy investigation show “Nostradamus Effect.”" </li> <li> The article provides one sentence of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "Nostradamus Effect: In the new episode "Armageddon Battle Plan," researchers explore the writings contained in the Dead Sea Scrolls, which detail a future apocalyptic war that will end the world, and claim to find an amazing "coincidence" between events that are unfolding now and those foretold in the War Scroll (9 p.m. History)." </li> </ol></li> </ol>There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Nostradamus Effect to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 10:23, 8 May 2022 (UTC) </li></ul>
 * All but one of those is trivial and only dedicates a sentence or two to the show. Common Sense Media's review is the only one I could consider significant coverage. The others are about the idea of the effect as a whole, and just casually name-drop the show in passing. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 16:27, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Both and  provide very substantial coverage about the subject while  provides critical analysis about the TV series. Cunard (talk) 07:59, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep: To follow-up on my prior comment, I now !vote keep based on Cunard's good research.  Nostradamus is wrong again (I hope)!!--Milowent • <sup style="position:relative">has<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">spoken  12:42, 12 May 2022 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.