Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reality Check (podcast)


 * 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 00:58, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Reality Check (podcast)

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Does not pass WP:GNG or WP:WEBCRIT. The only sources currently cited in the article that are not blogs is a short interview at Toronto City News by Lindsay Dunn, a YouTube video by Toronto City News presented by Lindsay Dunn, and a Global News article that doesn't even dedicate 100 words to the podcast and is only a trivial mention. The CSI source might be reliable and contains a little bit more about the podcast, but again it's barely more than 100 words and is arguably a trivial mention. I couldn't find any more good sources and the page has been tagged for possible notability issues since 2019. TipsyElephant (talk) 20:21, 13 July 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:55, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment and Science. TipsyElephant (talk) 20:21, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment it looks like the CSI has been discussed at RSN a few times: here, briefly mentioned here, and briefly discussed her in relation to the Journal of Scientific Exploration. The Center for Inquiry has also been discussed here. Skeptical Inquirer (the magazine published by CSI) has been discussed a number of times at RSN: here, here, and here. I also discovered that the author of the CSI piece, D. J. Grothe, has been a guest on the Reality Check podcast multiple times (episode 98 and episode 58). If the CSI piece is considered more than a trivial mention then I think the reliability should be discussed and whether the author is independent should also be discussed. TipsyElephant (talk) 12:59, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete A considered and thoroughly researched nomination, and even-handed at that. Weighing all of this, together with the content in the article, I believe we fail WP:GNG here. It may be considered borderline by some, but generally I find little coverage, little inherent notability and little impact, influence or consequence attendant on the content presented in the podcast itself. Internet marginalia. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:37, 21 July 2022 (UTC)


 * 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.