Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geek's Guide to the Galaxy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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-admin closure) Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:27, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Geek's Guide to the Galaxy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Subject fails WP:NOTABILITY. insufficient trivial coverage from non reliable secondary blog sources Hu12 (talk) 04:26, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I am seeing some reliable source-ish coverage: [1] [2]. JoshuSasori (talk) 07:37, 14 December 2012 (UTC)- not reliable source-ish, those magazines belong to the podcasters themselves! Sorry, my error. JoshuSasori (talk) 07:42, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:19, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:19, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This show is, as the article notes, one of the world's most prominent literature podcasts. It's certainly not hard to find coverage of it online. Here are just a few examples: [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.65.166.132 (talk) 07:05, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Those are just blogs and sites hosting links to Geek's Guide to the Galaxy. None of those demonstrate notability.--Hu12 (talk) 01:26, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Um, they're not just any old "blogs and sites," they're sites like Boing Boing and Gawker, two of the most popular blogs on the internet. And they're definitely not just "links" -- they're articles and interviews covering the content of the podcast. Do you think any science fiction literature podcast is notable? Similiar science fiction literature podcasts such as Escape Pod and Comic Geek Speak have entries already. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.65.166.132 (talk) 22:10, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, good deal of secondary source coverage in varied references. — Cirt (talk) 16:03, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you provide some of them? Mostly seem to be self-published sources. JoshuSasori (talk) 01:19, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:11, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 04:56, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - the podcast is hosted by Wired (see [8],[9]), a reliable source. Diego (talk) 14:29, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hosted by a reliable source = notable? הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 16:42, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is Not inherited, nor is wired.com independent of the source in this case. Additionally those links are written "BY GEEK'S GUIDE TO THE GALAXY". --Hu12 (talk) 18:31, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hosted by a reliable source = notable? הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 16:42, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 09:52, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I've tried really hard to find anything in non-blog sources, but drawn a blank. However, it's written by two notable people, and the advice in WP:NWEB states "In such cases, it is often best to describe the website in the article about the notable person." I can't decide which of David Barr Kirtley or John Joseph Adams the content should belong to, so for that reason, the article should stay. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:07, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It has a mention in the LA Times [1], coverage in BookBanter [2], and is a nominee for the 2012 Parsec Awards best science fiction news site [3] as well as This is Horror's podcast of the year [4].
- The LA Times article states "Gibson's interview marks the launch of the new Wired podcast, The Geek's Guide to the Galaxy. That's all I know about it". That's not really significant coverage. The other references don't have much in them, either. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:36, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- BookBanter is definitely more than a passing mention. Also the Parsec Awards is a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization , which could qualify it for the Wikipedia:Notability (web) notability criteria. Let's wait and see until the award is decided. Diego (talk) 15:33, 4 January 2013 (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.