Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Who Wrote 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 delete. W.marsh 13:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Who Wrote the Bible

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Isn't an important TV programme, article is a NPOV trawl through the Bible, from the POV of a believer, all of which is covered in more detail on the individual book articles. It also claims to be an up to date look at Bible scholarship, despite the fact the programme is now 12 years old. Gareth E Kegg 00:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete or at the very least add "(1995 TV Program)" to the title to put it into perspective. - Richfife 04:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Seems to place undue weight on a TV series that hasn't really gained notoriety - or if it has, the article writer didn't say so. I would sooner approve an article on Richard Elliot Friedman's book of the same name. Yechiel Man  05:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. This program has to be as "important" as a Star Trek episode, each of which has a topic.  However, as per Richfife, the title should be expanded with "(1995 TV Program)".  --Interesdom 13:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, but Star Trek Episodes are fictional, and add something in telling a new story, but everything in this article is better covered in the articles on the indivdual books. Gareth E Kegg 13:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Importance is not the measure; notability is. For each Star Trek episode, there are undoubtedly dozens of people who could recite the dialog verbatim; I'd doubt there's a single person who could do likewise with even a 20-minute excerpt from this tv show. Carlossuarez46 18:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete seems more like a sales brochure; I don't believe that anything that aired on some network is notable, much less the resultant (and no doubt quite profitable) DVDs of such programs on which this article seems focused. Carlossuarez46 18:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep and Cleanup I think the article does require cleanup (for example, there is no reference that it is part of the Ancient Mysteries series of A&E programs, many of which have their own articles.  Nor does the Ancient Mysteries page yet link to this article.)  The program had one review, at time of airing, at http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=990CEFDD1739F93BA25750C0A963958260, and one other passing review as part of a group at http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4207/is_19950317/ai_n10189427 (The Milwaukee Journal, via Findarticles)  Don't know if that's enough to get it past notability, but it's enough for me. LaughingVulcan 23:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Cleaned up my own note above, sorry! LaughingVulcan 00:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Added the Ancient Mysteries link to the article, and the program to the Ancient Mysteries page. I may have been mistaken before, as most of the links in the AM article seem to redirect to the generic subject of the program, not a link to the program of the AM series itself.LaughingVulcan 03:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete No signs of notability. Elrith 00:14, 23 May 2007 (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.