Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/What's In The Bible


 * 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   redirect to Phil Vischer. J04n(talk page) 18:11, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

What's In The Bible

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Notability, declined PROD by author. It's a Fox! (What did I break) 17:46, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. This would be close in the event that substantial third-party coverage existed of the subject, but it doesn't.  Although I have to admit I was highly amused by the content.   dci  &#124;  TALK   21:00, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. I did find a couple of RS discussions of this project: Deseret News, Christian Post.  At minimum, some discussion of the project belongs in the article about Phil Vischer; not sure if there's enough to sustain a separate article. --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:43, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * While the Christian Post article would be a quite informative and objective source, I'm not sure if it can really be construed as giving significant coverage of this subject. I do agree with you that it could supplement the info in the Vischer article.  On the other hand, the Deseret News one is a bit sketchy, describing the show in somewhat promotional phrasing.   dci  &#124;  TALK   01:55, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Non-notable Christian drivel. NickCochrane (talk) 03:14, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete/redirect to Phil Vischer. Vischer is notable, but not everything he has created is. This at most merits a mention and redirect, but that's about it. I debated nominating this for a speedy because the earlier version of the article was blatantly promotional, but I decided against it since there might be some random off-Internet sources that would help it pass.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   07:50, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-notable, and do not redirect. As this work is not demonstrably notable, I don't think it would be appropriate for Wikipedia to keep a redirect from this title; otherwise people typing the question into Google would be directed to a writer who is clearly not among the most notable/recognised authors on the subject. – Fayenatic  L ondon 12:45, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete not notable: a mention in something like the Christian Post is nowhere near notability. One would need a whole raft of similar material from independent sources of that type. (N.b. the sources given for the Vischer article don't seem to me to establish notability for him either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpacobb  (talk • contribs) 00:00, 12 March 2013‎
 * Keep sufficient references to establish notability. Some of the objections are clearly not objective but driven by bias such as "Non-notable Christian drivel" (by NickCochrane) – comment added by Edgelore (talk) 15:20, 12 March 2013
 * I share your concern about the objectivity of such comments; however, an excellent rationale is given by Tokyogirl and Jpacobb above, as well as by several others.  dci  &#124;  TALK   01:27, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Looking at the original there was not enough external citations, however the current version establishes notability through substantial third-party coverage, most of whom have an alexa rank of under 100K. In addition taking a quick look at either "find sources" links below you can quickly see hundreds of blogs talking about the subject. djkwk7 (talk) 15:36, March 12 2013 —Preceding undated comment added 19:38, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Blogs are of dubious reliability; objective information of the subject really ought to be at least substantiated by a more reliable, verifiable source.  dci  &#124;  TALK   01:25, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that small blogs are not objectively reliable however thousands of blogs verifying the same information would bring credibility to any subject, despite the more important part of my statement which stated that all the sources sited in the article are coming from reliable sources sites that have an Alexa rank less than a 100K, meaning the top .01% of all websites on the planet, most of the sources are under 5K rank and places them more in line of being the top .001% of sites in the world. The references in this article are more credible than the other articles referenced to in wikipedia. The decision to keep this article or not should not rely on peoples nonobjective opinions of whether they have hear of it or not, but rather the validation criteria which wikipedia has set in place, all of which this article falls within. djkwk7 (talk) 04:36, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - There are a number of reasons blogs are not valid references. Just because something is in print or believed by the masses does not make it true.  (i.e., 33% of Americans think the Sun revolves around the earth, 49% of US adults and students think that ordinary tomatoes do not have genes, but genetically altered do.)  Alexa ranking does not measure credibility or reliably, only hits.  TMZ and Perez Hilton probably have high ranking, but I would question their credibility/reliability.  You refer to other articles not having references better than this one, but that has no bearing on this AfD.  See WP:OTHERSTUFF. red dog six  (talk) 18:00, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a current project of someone who has sold more than 50 million VHS/DVDs. This series is should also be considered notable for its pioneering work in puppetry . I would also like to dismiss the earlier comments that were far from objective.workworkcf (talk) 15:36, March 12 2013 —Preceding undated comment added 19:38, 12 March 2013 (UTC)  — workworkcf (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Delete - Not-notable DVD.  red dog six  (talk) 02:28, 14 March 2013 (UTC)




 * Redirect/merge to Phil Vischer, the creator of the series. I think this is borderline as far as notability goes. There is some third-party coverage - most of what I found is already cited in the article - but the coverage may not amount to significance. A redirect/merge would retain the basic information and the history, and the article could be recreated if notability increases in the future. --MelanieN (talk) 16:24, 17 March 2013 (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.