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. Black Kite (talk) 19:20, 22 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Thinking Allowed (TV series)

Thinking Allowed (TV series) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)

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

Doesn't appear to have been a particularly notable television show (apparently about fringe topics and the like) and quality sources of any kind appear lacking. Hasn't been expanded in years. Laval ( talk) 11:47, 13 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:06, 13 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:06, 13 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:07, 13 November 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep A television show that aired for 14 years on a national television network? (Back before YouTube, when being on a national television network was a big deal?) That's pretty notable. Here's a review of tapes of the show. -- GRuban ( talk) 17:09, 13 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • The age of the show doesn't in and of itself make it notable. Per the article itself, it was a minor show on a local channel for a few years, and then was on PBS for another few years. Where are all the secondary sources demonstrating notability of this program? See WP:RS and WP:V. Sources about this show that meet our RS and V criteria are scarce, if any at all. The link you use is not a reliable secondary source. Laval ( talk) 03:58, 14 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Also, it should be noted that the article contains not a single reliable source and it is using only primary sources, namely Jeffrey Mishlove's website and his show's YouTube videos. That isn't acceptable enough for a Wikipedia article. Laval ( talk) 04:08, 14 November 2020 (UTC) reply
    • It doesn't make it notable, but it leads to it as a fairly safe assumption. It would be a truly exceptional show that survived for 14 years on a major network with no one watching. As to your second point, Wikipedia:Primary sources can be perfectly reliable sources. It is true that we'd prefer secondary ones, but we are here to document the world's knowledge, and that clearly includes the simple, straightforward facts that this was such a show, that aired on such and such dates, and was hosted by such and such a person. We're far better off having an article on a clearly notable topic such as a 14 year major network television show based on primary sources and a review in Yoga Journal (which is, actually, a secondary source), than no article at all. Perfect is the enemy of good. -- GRuban ( talk) 23:05, 14 November 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete: also a book, by the presenter. I'm finding sources about the book but not about the show. WP:NTV/"airing on national television" is about "likely to be notable", not "notable". I checked for newspaper sources, reviews, academic sources etc. Not finding anything. Recreation is possible if someone can find more than the single secondary source currently given. — Bilorv ( talk) 02:07, 17 November 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete: Per WP:STICKTOSOURCE: If no reliable independent sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article about it. This is in agreement with the basic of notability as provided by GNG: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. In fact the source "Archetypal Psychology" appears to be nothing more that a contextomy and advertisement. If a source includes some advertisement, as a means to allow the information to be presented, that is one thing, but if a source is used wherein the ultimate goal is the advertisement, it is attempts to commercialize Wikipedia at worse and synthesis at best. YouTube just does not achieve any of the criteria as a source to advance notability. See: Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites#YouTube and WP:RSPYT -- Otr500 ( talk) 13:36, 17 November 2020 (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.