Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mormon Expression

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. -- Cirt (talk) 01:49, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mormon Expression

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No reliable sources given or found to establish notability of a website/podcast/blog, let alone fulfilling the requirements of WP:GNG. PROD was removed, sources given are at least an order of magnitude below covering rule 2 on WP:WEB#Criteria. tedder (talk) 17:54, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sources indicating notability have been added. This is probably the most important Mormon-themed podcast on the internet, with 15,000 weekly downloads. This should not be deleted.Watonga (talk) 18:05, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:33, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - sources from a quick Google search appear similar to the two that are already in the article - blogs and similar non-reliable sources. If some of them turned out to actually be well regarded within their niche, I could be convinced that this should be a weak keep instead. We really need a few editors with a better feel for what can be considered good sources for what effectively amounts to LDS pop culture. I am posting a link to this AfD at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement. VQuakr (talk) 01:53, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Additional source has been added to show relationship to Mormon Stories podcast, which is well-known in the Mormon blogging community.--Nathan T. (talk) 06:19, 9 January 2011 (UTC)— Nathandt (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Notability is not inherited. tedder (talk) 06:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Point is that sources have been added. Isn't about ITSAWombat24 (talk) 01:24, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources? They are primary sources and self-published/blogs. They are not reliable sources, they are sources indicating this exists, nothing more. There are zero reliable sources establishing WP:WEB or WP:GNG. tedder (talk) 01:41, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep New article; which needs some more time to grow into a article that will meet WP:WEB. Deleting the page so early only serves as a quasi-censorship act in wikipedia and seems to be religiously motivated since the podcast is generally not friendly to the mormon church.Wombat24 (talk) 01:24, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do explain how this is religiously motivated and how it is censorship. Content that is from a positive or negative point of view still needs to meet the notability guidelines. tedder (talk) 01:41, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:19, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Solely based on the fact that I have heard of it before I knew there was an article for it, so my general (if unscientific) sense is there is some notability. --Descartes1979 (talk) 06:19, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IKNOWIT. Where did you hear of it? Any chance it was in a publication that would qualify as nontrivial coverage and could be a usable source? VQuakr (talk) 07:39, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am loathe to delete this type of article on the origins of a digital audio publication. The inclusion of such material enhances Wikipedia. As it currently stands, this article needs some sort of external sourcing, however. Carrite (talk) 02:12, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability of a media outlet should not be limited to mention by other media, which are not generally served by coverage of peer media outlets that do not have newsworthy problems. Rather, notability should be measured by consumption of those to whom it is targeted. In this case, the target is a small audience and unlikely to be picked up by larger media outlets. Notability would be better measured by statistics such as those developed by itunes. --Cpt. Mormon (talk) 13:38, 16 January 2011
Keep This is not a fly-by-night podcast. Mormon Expression has over 100 episodes and is followed by thousands of people. It is respected and cherished by the liberal and Ex Mormon communities as a reliable and entertaining source for the exploration of Mormon History, scholarship, critique, and culture. Mormon Expression is well-established in this niche. The fact that it has not yet been cited outside of it's niche market, should not devalue its worth. Many people who HAVE been cited in "outside" media have seen Mormon Expression as a significant and respectable enough podcast to agree to be interviewed. These have included, Elna Baker (comedian and author), John Dehlin (Founder of Mormon Stories), Ed Decker (co-creator of The God Makers), Will Bagley (author and story-teller), John Hamer (editor, mapmaker, and President of the John Whitmer Historical Association), Alexander Zaitchik (freelance investigative journalist who has written for Salon Magazine, The New Republic, The Nation, Reason Magazine, The International Herald Tribune, Wired Magazine, The San Francisco Chronicle, The Believer, and The Prague Post), Melissa Leilani Larsen (playwright), Brian Dalton (Mr. Diety), Dr. Gene Sessions (author, editor, History Professor), Jeff Ricks (founder of Post-Mormon), Mitch Horowitz (author, editor-in-chief of Tarcher/Penguin), and others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zilpha (talk • contribs) 17:43, 21 January 2011 (UTC) — Zilpha (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Again, Notability is not inherited. tedder (talk) 17:49, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Comment I agree, notability is not (or at least shouldn't be) inherited. However, it seems to me that in a case such as this, notable guests and interviews DOES lend a podcast (or radio show, or television show) some degree of legitimate notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zilpha (talk • contribs) 01:57, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]