Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Night Call (podcast)

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) Pamzeis (talk) 13:01, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Night Call (podcast)[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Article does not meet WP:GNG for WP:SIGCOV that addresses the subject directly and indepth. // Timothy :: talk 16:42, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Hello! Per the guidelines "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." In none of the citations from TIME, Oprah, and ELLE is Night Call the main topic of the source material, but in every one Night Call is addressed in its own distinct topic (which is to say directly) with at least 70 words devoted specifically to it (which is to say in depth). Additionally, these sources are reliable, secondary, and independent. Kinerd518 (talk) 17:53, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:13, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:00, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again! It's been a week and I'm not sure if the original deletion nominator is around or has any response, at what point is it reasonable to consider the discussion closed for purposes of removing the notice? Thanks! Kinerd518 (talk) 16:44, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Modifying search to "Night Call (podcast)" turns up an array of web pages / news about this podcast. Girls in Hoodies also gets significant coverage. Some of the reviews qualify as secondary (Timber!) so there is notability. Keep. -- Whiteguru (talk) 07:05, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion to me seems pretty well closed with ample time for input. I'm going to remove the notice from the page, thanks everyone! :) Kinerd518 (talk) 18:26, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kinerd518, That's not the proper proceedure. Please let an admin close the discussion // Timothy :: talk 19:23, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- TimothyBlue Fair enough! How do we get in touch with one? Kinerd518 (talk) 19:30, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  Kinerd518, admins review them regularly, I imagine they are giving this more time since the sources have not improved to show the article meets guidelines. Since this has had limited participation, it will probably be relisted. // Timothy :: talk 19:38, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sources in article have not been improved. Comments above above are about clickbait articles and "least 70 words devoted specifically to it" is not in depth coverage. No one has listed any further sources that meet guidelines. // Timothy :: talk 19:34, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- TimothyBlue It seems we have a disagreement about whether the sources meet the guidelines though, and there's no exception for "clickbait" that I can find in the notability guidelines. Can you tell me what specific criteria for a source would satisfy you? Or can you find someone who agrees with your assessment that can do the same? Kinerd518 (talk) 19:45, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  Kinerd518, See WP:RS and WP:RSEDITORIAL for information on sourcing. There should be two secondary sources which are not editorials that meet WP:SIGCOV. Regarding "Or can you find someone who agrees with your assessment" would be considered WP:CANVASSING and is strictly prohibited, the discussion needs to be natural and organic.
  
  I did try and find sources, but was unsuccessful. I hope you are able to, I listened to the podcast, it was interesting and well produced and I enjoyed it. // Timothy :: talk 20:15, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - TimothyBlue Again though it's not clear to me what you're looking for - I'm not using the editorial sources to claim that Night Call is the BEST podcast, merely that it is A podcast that has been covered in independent reliable and secondary sources, and therefore warrants a Wikipedia page. You keep pointing me back to significant coverage but I and one other person feel that standard has been met already, which is why I'm trying to get at what you specifically are looking for. Do you see what I mean? Kinerd518 (talk) 21:30, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note added delsorts to help increase discussion // Timothy :: talk 19:52, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 19:52, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 19:52, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 19:52, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong | [speak] || 07:43, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 70 words is not sigcov (t · c) buidhe 08:30, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "70 words" was probably not the best opening keep argument, and may have skewed some follow-on discussion points... Perhaps WP:100W was considered too high a bar? Short reviews are the norm in the book world (e.g. those from Publishers Weekly, Kirkus, Library Journal, Booklist, etc.) and quite the foundation of WP:NBOOK.
Regardless, it is better to evaluate the sources on their own merit, and WP:NWEB is our guideline if GNG fails us. Here is another "best of" example, but I would definitely not consider that significant... Looking at the O piece, I think that fails the first WP:WEBCRIT bullet of NWEB, not being much more than "this is what it is" and a rank. The Elle piece is more along the lines of something from Kirkus, and the Time piece something from Booklist. Here is a more in-depth review from Vulture: [1], and this review is decent [2]. Anyway, if one were to only take Time and Vulture I would keep. -2pou (talk) 21:10, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I added the Vulture and the Maine one, as well as one I found that's a similarly longer review, and removed the Oprah one. Thanks for the recommendations! Kinerd518 (talk) 20:27, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Kinerd518: Good find. That Pacific Standard piece is probably the best reference yet. -2pou (talk) 22:16, 6 October 2020 (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.