Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hollywood Science

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 Revert to page on BBC series since no one else wants to do the legwork. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:01, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hollywood Science

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Page is a total mess. It refers to two different unrelated shows of the same name, neither of which seems notable on its own per Wikipedia:Notability (television). At some point it also got hijacked to be about the concept of fake science in the media. Suggest some WP:TNT here if any of this is to be kept. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:26, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:31, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is a lack of reliable sources cited. Further, some specifics are incoherent to the main topic of the subject. Multi7001 (talk) 02:59, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but decide what the article is supposed to be about. We have three different things here: two television series' and a concept. All three might be independently notable, and the current article contains some useable material on two of them. AfD deletion is supposed to be for things where there is no salvageable content, or no notability. On the subject of "Hollywood science" in the sense of science perverted for film effect, there are several books on exactly that subject, for example Sidney Perkowitz "Hollywood Science: Movies, Science, and the end of the world" [1]. The subject is almost certainly notable and riddled with reliable sources. Meanwhile the BBC series has been selected by the Open University as the subject of a free learning resource [2] which is an independent indication of notability, and very in-depth, and the royal society of chemistry (RSC) held a lecture about the series [3], again independent and in-depth. Google is your friend. It's not hard to find sources for these. I haven't gone on to try the National Geographic series, so I'm not commenting on that one. Elemimele (talk) 07:04, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with others. Lets sort it all out.Super (talk) 13:10, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and revert to solely about the BBC/OU series. If the Nat Geographic series can be shown to be independently notable then that should be a separate page. On the other hand, if this AfD fails to keep as is, then repurpose to a broad concept article since that is unarguably notable. SpinningSpark 14:13, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Elemimele: @Supercopone: @Spinningspark: So are any of you going to do the heavy lifting? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:58, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.