Talk:Kill James Bond!

Comment
Note to reviewer: I’m not sure of the best way to change the redirect to Abigail Thorn’s page, will be happy to do whatever is necessary to fix. The podcast is notable in its own right as a work of criticism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smallangryplanet (talk • contribs) 23:58, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * this comment is a little confusing for a couple of reasons. I gather you mean to comment this to Draft:Kill James Bond! and grab the attention of one of the three reviewers who have declined the draft for the same reason. The most confusing bit is that this is the talk page of an existing redirect that already leads to Abigail Thorn. So I'm not sure what change you are suggesting.
 * I'm not one of the reviewers, but the topic Kill James Bond! is not standalone notable it lacks substantial in-depth coverage in sources independent of it. Currently the draft's only independent sources are a listicle in Entertainment.ie and a brief mention on a CBC podcast (Insider is an interview, so not independent). Neither are very substantial, and we would generally need to see more than just two sources even if they were much fuller pieces dedicated only to Kill James Bond!
 * An article not being notable is not a failure of the writer—it is an intrinsic property of the topic (as much as the subject area is). Creating new articles is one of the hardest tasks on Wikipedia and one of the worst for newcomers to attempt, because the first and most major step in article creation is establishing that notability is met, which relies heavily on both understanding the theoretical standards established at pages like Notability (web) and understanding how these are interpreted in practice (when is something "substantial" enough? What number of sources is enough in what context?). In the articles I create, my research phase comes first and in many cases I discover that topics I expected to be notable, or that I am very passionate about, are not. — Bilorv ( talk ) 20:06, 11 November 2021 (UTC)