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


 * 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)

The Atheist Experience
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

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


 * The broadcaster's website
 * A Gallup poll
 * Another poll
 * Another poll
 * A YouTube fan channel
 * YouTube viewer statistics
 * A puff piece in a local newspaper reprinted by an activist site
 * A biography published by the show itself
 * A page from the broadcaster's site
 * A personal website
 * An article on public-access TV that makes passing mention of the show
 * A biography published by the show itself
 * A video of a show episode
 * A biography published by the show itself
 * An IMDb biography
 * A biography published by the show itself
 * An IMDb biography
 * A personal website
 * A biography published by the show itself
 * A comic strip
 * A dead link that was a biography published by the show itself
 * A show archive
 * A blog
 * A YouTube video of a show episode
 * A YouTube video of a show episode
 * A YouTube video of a show episode
 * A conference invite page
 * A personal website
 * A video of a show episode
 * A YouTube video of a show episode
 * A professor's homepage
 * A website announcing the show won a reader poll
 * A newspaper award
 * A website announcing the show won a reader poll
 * A newspaper award

Plainly, about 90% of these can be discarded without much further discussion. The rest doesn't amount to much &mdash; 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 &mdash; 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)


 * 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)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Atheism-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 26 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - A very substantial web footprint, but mostly freethought blogs. A good redirect or merge target might be Matt Dillahunty. Carrite (talk) 01:51, 27 May 2012 (UTC)


 * 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.
 * 'A Gallup poll': research by The Gallup Organization
 * 'Another poll': research by the American Religious Identification Survey
 * 'Another poll': research by the Pew Research Center
 * 'A puff piece in a local newspaper reprinted by an activist site': article by the Austin American-Statesman (daily circulation 151,000 - Sundays 186,000), reposted by the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science website.
 * 'An article on public-access TV that makes passing mention of the show': Article is written by PBS and the whole 'TV Offers Different Interactivity' section of http://www.pbs.org/mediashift/2008/12/public-access-tv-fights-for-relevance-in-the-youtube-age352.html is about TAE.
 * 'A website announcing the show won a reader poll' (2x): won twice, awarded by about.com
 * 'A newspaper award' (2x): won twice, awarded by The Austin Chronicle (230,000 readers)
 * 'A professor's homepage': website of particle physicist Victor J. Stenger


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * The Austin American-Statesman piece may or may not bolster a claim of notability, but it's simply a bad idea to link to it as hosted on an activist website. Just like we wouldn't link to a New York Times article hosted by Stormfront at Race and ethnicity in the United States, or wouldn't link to a Wall Street Journal article hosted by the North American Man/Boy Love Association site in the Pederasty article, this too is inappropriate.
 * Unfortunatelly the article is not available online on it's original printer's website, so I had to go with republished material. I do think you should refrain from equating the Richard Dawkins Foundation with questionable parties like Stormfront and NAMBLA, because it helps neither your argument nor this discussion. --Pereant antiburchius (talk) 19:02, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I did not "equate" the one with the other, except in trying to show what kinds of sites we should avoid quoting. But fine then, let's bring up something less objectionable and liken it to citing the websites of National Right to Life Committee or NARAL Pro-Choice America at Opposition to the legalization of abortion. The point is, one doesn't generally cite activist sites in articles related to their field. Sources should be objective. And regardless of who's reprinting it, the piece itself is anything but: "Dillahunty may have been destined for this."; "His voice is calm, patient"; "He still wants to save people" are not straight news reporting. - Biruitorul Talk 19:42, 2 June 2012 (UTC)


 * No matter how notable Stenger may be as a physicist and as a critic of religion, WP:SELFPUB comes into play when one cites his homepage. - Biruitorul Talk 17:20, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * Delete. The only WP:RS about the show I can find is the local coverage in the Austin American-Statesman and The Austin Chronicle noted above, which isn't enough for WP:N. -- 202.124.72.77 (talk) 00:47, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * Comment - added four more sources
 * Benedictine University explains the peer reviewing process using a TAE segment.
 * Matt Dillahunty (ACA president and TAE main host) debating at the West Texas A&M University
 * Dillahunty debating at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County
 * University Star - Dillahunty speaking in support of the Secular Student Alliance --Pereant antiburchius (talk) 17:54, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Yes, those sources demonstrate notability for Matt Dillahunty, but not for this TV show. -- 202.124.72.61 (talk) 14:45, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep As I not only find this notable, but several (though not all) of the sources do indeed seem to qualify it for notability.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 01:01, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak keep based on sources listed in the article. Most are not reliable, but enough are.   Th e S te ve   06:37, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I found the article useful & would recommend it be kept. I have my suspicions as to why the article has been nominated for deletion.  God is not mocked -- his followers see to that :-/  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Touristupdate (talk • contribs) 13:17, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep I see enough reliable sources there. -- Alexf(talk) 14:24, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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.