Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe (2nd nomination)


 * 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 speedy keep. The nomination is so erroneous (literally showing GNG) that it has not a snowball's chance in hell of passing, and could just as well be also speedily kept by WP:CSK no. 3 (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:42, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log )

I don’t understand why citations 7 through 11 are even being referenced or what their relevance to the subject of the article is as they mostly do not mention any keywords such as “skeptic,” “podcast,” or “Novella.” Novella is mentioned in passing a couple times but never in connection to the podcast. As far as I can tell the two Skeptical Inquirer articles are the only sources that aren’t self-published or from a blog, social media, or other unreliable source. However, these two articles are written by journalists (Rob Palmer and Susan Gerbic) who aren’t particularly well known from a magazine that isn’t particularly well known. It's also worth noting that these authors are part of "the Guerilla Skeptcism on Wikipedia team" according to the profile information at the bottom of both articles. These sources are also in interview format so almost all the information is directly coming from the hosts of the show as opposed to an independent or secondary source. I searched around for some sources that might indicate some level of notability, but the only sources I could find that had more than a trivial mention include book riot, The Hindu Buisness Line, Business Insider, and Thrillist. These sources only dedicate a short paragraph to the podcast and I’m unconvinced that the topic meets WP:GNG. The podcast won some People’s Choice Awards, which might qualify it for WP:WEBCRIT but the guideline says that an article “may be notable based on meeting one of the following criteria” not that it’s guaranteed. Also, the People’s Choice Award is arguably not a “well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization”. If someone would like to add the sources I found to the hosts’ articles that might be worth the time, but I don’t think anything from this article is salvageable so I’m not sure that would even count as a merge.If the podcast is determined to be notable enough for a stand alone article I still think the majority of the article needs to be rewritten and given the available sources wouldn’t be much more than a stub. TipsyElephant (talk) 15:11, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 15:11, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 15:11, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 15:11, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 15:11, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 15:11, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 15:11, 24 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep The Skeptical Inquirer has been in publication for over forty years, has an international distribution and is widely regarded as one of the foundational publications of modern skepticism. To describe it as "not particularly well known" as part of an AfD argument strains credulity. The further claim that those two cites are the only independent ones is just blatantly false: I count 12 independent sources cited in the references.
 * The complaint about cites 7-11 above would have taken a single mouse click to verify: they're about one of the podcast's hosts, and are properly used to support content about that host. The claim that they don't contain the word "Novella" is categorically false. They're all about Steven Novella.
 * The complaints here about the Podcast Awards are even more strange. We have an article about them which has survived an AfD and is well-sourced, yet they're somehow not notable? That's an oxymoron.
 * The fact that even the nominator managed to find 4 references which aren't currently used in the article demonstrates rather clearly that there's no lack of sourcing (and thus, no lack of notability) here.
 * Finally, I'd like to draw any other editor's attention to the last AfD and the result: Unanimous "Keep". Have the sources which supported it then since ceased to exist? No. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  20:01, 24 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep - This podcast handily passes WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Here are several secondary WP:RSes which cover the subject in moderate-to-heavy depth at a national level. But here are also some local sources with even more significant coverage of the subject.  It's also featured often as a "top listen" in features about science podcasts.  Their book has been reviewed in national outlets.    As a news/entertainment organization, they also pass WP:AUD with a whopping 132 million+ downloads and 100,000+ weekly listeners. So, in my interpretation of the relevant WP:PAG, it's an obvious keep.-- Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 20:16, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Remarkably, it's on several current Top Ten Science Podcasts lists. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:31, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per Shibboleth. "A magazine that isn’t particularly well known"? Pull the other one. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:34, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep When the AfD nomination lists multiple independent sources, one has to ask why we are even bothering with this. I mean literally one could vote "Keep per nom" without any trace of irony.  This should be SNOW withdrawn by the nominator, followed by a light trouting. Hyperion35 (talk) 20:40, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for introducing me to the term trouting. This is precisely what I needed in my life this fine Thursday.-- Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 21:10, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually, it refers to WP:TROUT; the act of smacking someone in the face with a dead fish.
 * Which, now that I think about it, is far worse than what's described in your link.
 * And it gets better! You can also get whaled. Which is, of course, far better than getting whaled. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  21:15, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Wow yeah I would much rather get Urban Dictionary trouted than smacked in the face with a dead fish. The former is is a child's game, the latter is a recipe for giving somebody FACE GANGRENE. /s -- Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 21:20, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm stealing FACE GANGRENE for the name of my new Grindcore band. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  21:42, 24 June 2021 (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.