Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Decoding the Past

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. Spirited defense by User:Tokyogirl79, as usual. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:00, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decoding the Past

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability. Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 19:16, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sources I found:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/26/arts/television/26stew.html?_r=0 - Not about the series as a whole, but about one episode in particular
http://www.dvdverdict.com/reviews/secretskoran.php - Not sure if this is considered reliable source. It's a review of two episodes on DVD
http://www.usatodayeducate.com/staging/index.php/voices/the-history-channel-steps-into-reality-tv - Show is mentioned only once in a list of History Channel shows
http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/nr.2012.16.1.61 - Show is briefly mentioned, not significantly covered
http://www.udel.edu/PR/UDaily/2007/oct/oxford102706.html - PR piece about a professor who appeared on the show

-- Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 19:30, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 19:30, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:01, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northern Antarctica ₵ 03:24, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I haven't looked at all of the sources, but I can say that the DVD Verdict review can count as a reliable source to show notability, as can the NYT source. I'll look at the others and get back to you on those. Offhand, the JSTOR source can be somewhat useful since it is in a peer-reviewed journal and it's being cited as a notable example of something... even if what they're talking about isn't particularly positive. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:28, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We can't use the UD source because it's sort of primary, as they're talking about one of their own professors that managed to get on the show. If it wasn't about someone that worked for them or was related to them in some way we might have been able to use it, but not in this instance. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:30, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The USA Today source wouldn't be very useful, as it's pretty much a trivial source. The JSTOR source can be trivial, but then that's from a far more credible source (peer-reviewed journal) and holds a little more weight. I don't know that the JSTOR source will be the one that keeps it, though. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:37, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm leaning towards a weak keep. We have a few reviews for the show, even if it's just specific episodes, and the series has been mentioned in various academic texts in different fashions. (ABC-CLIO lists it as a source while another pretty much considers it to be the herpes of the history television world, for example.) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:45, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've found just enough to where I think that it could squeak by notability guidelines. The DVD release of the Koran episodes received quite a bit of coverage, but it makes more sense to have one article for the show as a whole as opposed to articles about the individual episodes. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:53, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.