Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Trouble With Atheism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Silence (talk | contribs) at 21:29, 25 February 2007. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

The Trouble With Atheism

The Trouble With Atheism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Not a notable TV show. Article contains no reliable sources, and this topic as a whole fails notability. Also is a POV soapbox with no encyclopediac content. Sefringle 20:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete - no evidence of coverage in external sources to establish notability per WP:N. Delete unless sources can be added. (Although it should be possible to find sources to demonstrate notability - this show was fairly high-profile in the UK when it was on, and I recall it being mentioned in magazines and such.) Walton Vivat Regina! 20:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete No sources and does not appear to be notable, but I don't think it is very POV. It is an article about a TV show that is POV, there really is no other side to present. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 20:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Only blog results on google, and no news results. I wonder if "The programme meets Britain's two atheist fundamentalist scientists" is what the nominator considers POV soapbox? --Merzul 20:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - like Merzul, I'm having trouble finding independent sources for this. -- Chairman S. Talk Contribs 21:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. About as noteworthy as, say, The Atheism Tapes, which I doubt we'll see deleted. I find the arguments made in the documentary absolutely atrocious, but it's by far one of the most noteworthy and high-profile atheism-related documentaries. As Walton noted, "this show was fairly high-profile in the UK when it was on, and I recall it being mentioned in magazines and such"; that makes it noteworthy, all we lack are some reliable secondary sources to give this article some substance. (Much like we need exactly that for The Atheism Tapes, etc.) I'm not British, or I'd look for some print news sources about this myself; could anyone here check up on that? As for the POV soapbox issue, that's neither true (reporting on a POV is not the same as having a POV) nor relevant, as it's a content issue. -Silence 21:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]