Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Very Bad Wizards


 * 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. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 00:30, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Very Bad Wizards

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Doesn't seem to have any independent coverage, thus making it fail our general notability guidelines. RileyBugz 会話投稿記録 19:25, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * This is a work in progress, but I've added some independent sources discussing the podcast (or rather discussing the discussions on the podcast). This podcast is also ranked 2nd in the iTunes category 'philosophy', although I haven't found a way to link to this statistic which is found within iTunes.O. Prytz (talk) 19:51, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You need news articles, reviews in books, etc. to prove the notability of this podcast; having a high rank on iTunes in specific category doesn't matter if it isn't mentioned anywhere else. RileyBugz 会話投稿記録 22:30, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I have provided several references to discussions of the podcast and followup discussions of specific episodes/topics. I believe these should be more than enough to prove notability. I find it strange that ranking in iTunes should not speak to its notability. It is the equivalent to a newspapers circulation numbers, which I find highly relevant. Ø. Prytz (talk) 06:21, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Better, but there is only one reliable source that you have cited (The Philosophers' Magazine). All of the rest are blogs, which are not reliable. Also, it should be noted that we don't base things on notability in its traditional sense, but instead on verifiablity (which basically means coverage in reliable sources). RileyBugz 会話投稿記録 11:48, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I think I must object to what you say about blogs not being reliable sources for notability. They may of course questionable as sources on matters of fact, but in matters of notability I see no reason for blogs not to be "counted". If a topic or person gains widespread attention in blogs, podcasts, webpages, discussion boards etc, this must in my opinion also count as evidence of notability. The crucial point would be if these sources are independent (not created by e.g. the person in question). In the present case there is at least one "traditional print media" source as well. Ø. Prytz (talk) 15:56, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Whether something has gained widespread attention or not isn't what notability determines; as per WP:GNG, it determines whether or not something is covered in reliable sources. Since blogs aren't reliable, they aren't used. RileyBugz 会話投稿記録 16:25, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The definition of notability here is quite conventional 'Article and list topics must be notable, or "worthy of notice"', while WP:GNG gives one way in which notability can be determined: '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.' The phrasing clearly also allows content that has not been the subject of 'significant coverage in reliable sources', notability just has to be proven in some other way. I would for example say that the most widely circulated newspaper in the country would be notable as a subject by that fact alone, regardless of whether or not that newspaper, as a subject, is the topic of commentary in other newspapers. I also think that the terms 'reliability' and 'verifiability' are being inappropriately linked to 'notability', but that is perhaps a discussion in some other forum. Ø. Prytz (talk) 17:06, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * In any case: I've added more references to reliabale sources, and cleared away three blog entries from the reference list.Ø. Prytz (talk) 17:01, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:31, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:27, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Wikipedia isn't for the validation or promotion of a subject, it collects what falls under WP:GNG. Ifnord (talk) 16:07, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:TOOSOON. I looked for reasons to keep but there weren't enough. gidonb (talk) 00:25, 5 December 2017 (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.