Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Within the Wires


 * 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 keep.  So Why  12:07, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Within the Wires

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not my field, but notability seems doubtful. Huffington is not a RS.  DGG ( talk ) 16:59, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It's also been reviewed on IndieWire, and is part of the same "Network" as Welcome to Night Vale. Fireheart14 (talk) 17:02, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * (Also CBC Radio if that means anything). Fireheart14 (talk) 17:03, 20 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Weak keep - Most of the sources only mention the podcast in passing, though there are enough RS to establish notability. Meatsgains (talk) 17:07, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * (I added a few more sources with mentions and highlights from sources such as Wired and Vulture.) Fireheart14 (talk) 18:04, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Mentions have nothing to do with notability, no matter how many there are. What they are useful for is advertising.  DGG ( talk ) 14:33, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I just meant it in the sense that they may hold more weight in terms of RS than some of the previous ones like Huffington Post. ("Mentions" might not be the best descriptor tbh, since I didn't bother including articles that namedropped and moved on since they don't actually provide any info.) Fireheart14 (talk) 04:38, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:00, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:00, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Comments should be grounded in Wikipedia policies and guidelines.
 * Keep Appears to have sufficient coverage to establish notability. Artw (talk) 00:00, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:30, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:06, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:25, 5 May 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   11:45, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep as WP:NBOOK Power~enwiki (talk) 23:00, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * NBOOK quite specifically refers to books, not other intellectual productions. Read it.  DGG ( talk ) 04:20, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * "Until then, this guideline may be instructive by analogy." Power~enwiki (talk) 08:04, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It clearly has coverage in independent secondary sources. I see no reason to delete it. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:09, 21 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep - I'm not entirely sure about the article as is. However, CBC Radio is unambiguously a reliable source, and that plus other bits of coverage (even, admittedly, from more questionable publications) seems to make the podcast qualify under general notability guidelines. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 02:19, 22 May 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.