Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe

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. (non-administrative closure) -- RyRy (talk) 04:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe

non-notable podcast. Requires multiple non-trivial reliable sources to meet our inclusion criteria and these appear to be absent. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "As of June 2008, more than 35,000 listeners download the show each week. It is typically in the top ten listings for science podcasts on the iTunes store, and is currently ranked #1 on Digg in the Science Podcasts category:" There aren't that many notable podcasts, but this is one of them. Why is there a box here linking back to this discussion? Nick mallory (talk) 15:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The bos ie so all AFds are linked. If this is notable then there will be reliable sources that discuss the podcasts in a non-trivial way. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:52, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The 'bos' only links back to this page. Usually you only put a box in for previous AfDs. What's the point of it here? Oh, and, you know, Jimmy Carter. Nick mallory (talk) 08:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's third party coverage from reliable sources of Jimmy Carter's UFO interview on the Skeptics Guide to the Universe. [1] [2] The list of guests and it consistant rankings on Digg and iTunes also help. That said, in general I would err on the side of "Not too many podcasts, please." Vickser (talk) 22:58, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep SGU podcast is very notable. --Kvuo (talk) 07:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep SGU is notable. --Ppgardne 12:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ppgardne (talk • contribs)

Loads of interviews with notable people and a solid top 10 itunes ranking. This however is not good enough for the web notability, and further evidence there needs to be criteria for podcasts.Mindme (talk) 13:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a fan of the show, I don't think that I'm impartial enough to say whether to keep or not, but I would like to say a few words in its defense. First of all, it has consistently been a top rating show within the Itunes science category, and it is currently one of their featured podcasts within that category. In addition, they are notable enough that have been able to draw a number of high profile people to interview on their show. Examples include famous skeptics such as James Randi, entertainers such as Adam Savage and Tory Belleci from Mythbusters, and even President Jimmy Carter. Personally, I would say that this show meets any reasonable notability standard and this article should stay.Ricree101 (talk) 13:28, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (1) The SGU is among the most popular podcasts and consistently ranks highly on iTunes and websites as Digg, (2) The SGU is produced by two notable organizations, the James Randi Educational Foundation and of course the New England Skeptical Society, (3) The SGU has had many notable guests on, including president Jimmy Carter, and MythBusters' Adam Savage etc. (4) Various other articles link to the SGU article, including James Randi, James Randi Educational Foundation, New England Skeptical Society, Skepchick, Steven Novella etc. (5) The SGU podcast is mentioned in other news sources, example: http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/The-New-England-Skeptical-Society-788703.html Stefan Kruithof (talk) 13:33, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --JMA1 (talk) 14:02, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The SGU podcast is one of the highest ranked science podcasts, and has a listenership of over close to 40,000 people worldwide. In addition the SGU is at the forefront of the skeptical movement with the likes of James Randi, Phil Plait, PZ Meyers, and frequently has notable guests. While I agree that every podcast doesn't need a page, if requirements are so strict that an influential podcast like this one is excluded, then they need to be revisited.MArcane (talk) 17:40, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question Does anyone have any sources or are we going for notability by assertion? Do we no longer need to verify information in our articles? Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:01, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There have been a few mentioned, such as: [3] [4] Vickser (talk) 18:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you even reading this page? Various people have already mentioned the SGU's top rank on Digg and iTunes, which you can easily verify for yourself. Similarly, there have been links to the news articles in old media mentioning the SGU.Stefan Kruithof (talk) 18:33, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To answer both above having a nigh itunes and digg are not going to establish notabiliy. The first source you provided was a press release and we don't count press releases as evidence of notability, the second is a blog and that is also not evidence of notability even from the heraldtribune. See WP:RS. Also see WP:V. None of the information is sourced to a reliable source. Please stop taking pot shots at me and consider the points I'm making. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you considered the point that eleven people (so far) disagree with you and nobody supports you? Nick mallory (talk) 09:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These kinds of decisions on Wikipedia aren't made by majority rule, and besides, the only people who have responded are those who care about it the most, i.e. the listeners. The fact is that Spartaz correctly pointed out that this article had not met the notability requirements, and that many of the initial attempts at meeting those requirements fell short of Wikipedia's standards. Complaining that he's being mean is pointless. I happen to agree that the SGU is notable, but I decided to find reliable sources that mentioned it in a non-trivial way.

Even if there weren't any evidence of its notability, it wouldn't be helpful to get angry at the person implementing policy. The better thing to do would be to point out that the policy needs revision. As the amount of web content increases, the ability of traditional media to mention notable content will decrease, and Wikipedia's reliance upon them will be increasingly insufficient. Dhawkins1234 (talk) 21:41, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Reliable source examples says blogs run by newspapers are acceptable. I've never actually listened to the podcast, I just found this debate in AfD and did google research. Let's keep trying to WP:Assume Good Faith from both sides. It's true that this isn't majority rule, so it's the discussion that matters, not the Keeps with no context. Vickser (talk) 22:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, if a podcast that's an iTunes category leader, has a long track record of having on notable guests (notable people don't go on podcasts they judge as non-notable), and has more listeners/itunes reviews than some notable media productions, gets noted as notable by iTunes, and yet just hugs the web notability requirements, it seems manifest to me that there needs to be either a set of podcast notability criteria or, in the short term, sysops need not to be so dogmatic about notability criteria for podcasts until something better comes along. Trying to find podcasts given the thumbs up by dead tree and major media to demonstrate notability is a bit like arguing Beethoven is not notable because there are passingly few references to this crazy Ludwig guy in heavy metal magazines. Podcasting isn't going away. Podcast fans are going to bum rush wiki in increasing numbers and unless you get in place some more reasonable guidelines, wiki is going to create some horked off newbie editors who might otherwise make good future contributions. Mindme (talk) 18:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Here are a few other sources [5] [6] [7]. I'd also like to point out that the notability guideline isn't inflexible - the notability page indicates that the criteria should be applied with common sense and the occasional exception. The fact that there are media references, albeit brief, and that several notable individuals, including a former president, have appeared on the podcast should be enough to invoke common sense. Furthermore, you discount the blog that appears on the Herald Tribune, but the page on examples of reliable sources indicates that a blog published by professional journalist and hosted by his or her employer may be considered a reliable source. Dhawkins1234 (talk) 00:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Wikivir (talk) 18:19, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Why would anyone want this removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Evileyem (talk • contribs) 20:43, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Here are a few other notable mentions from the Nature Networks Editor among other notable place. [8] [9][10][11].Skeptic sid (talk • contribs) 01:45, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Edd (talk) 01:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep User:SkepticalBelg —Preceding comment was added at 15:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No doubt about it. --TheAlphaWolf (talk) 16:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I think it will be prudent here to Merge the "New England Skeptical Society" article into "The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe" podcast. This podcast is the podcast of the "New England Skeptical Society" and has since become much better known and more note-worthy then the organization that formed it. I do however think that the main article should be "The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe", since that as I said, is more noteworthy. -- Protesilaus 16:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question I have been looking into Wikipedia for a little while now and can't find any articles on any podcasts. I don't even see a classification that spawns a list of podcasts that have articles on Wikipedia. Which podcasts meet the prerequisites for publication on Wikipedia? -- Protesilaus 16:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.51.48.134 (talk) [reply]
Keep -- would seem to meet WP:WEB by being in the Featured list at iTunes, a respected independent distributor.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has been mentioned in Swift publication, Skeptic Magazine and a number of radio programs. Opcn (talk) 19:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Digg and iTunes rankings justify this Marcfarrow (talk) 23:10, 1 July 2008 (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.