Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Omega Tau 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 delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:26, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Omega Tau Podcast[edit]

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

Queried speedy delete as "not notable" Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:22, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
del. Nonnotable. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:54, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:04, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Does not pass WP:N. I found this blurb here ([1]) talking about what a great podcast it is, but there's really no real outside coverage about it (and I'm about 95 percent certain that Born to Engineer is not a legitimate source). Unfortunately have to !vote delete (although I may subscribe to it!). Nomader (talk) 04:59, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For instance, it was rated among the best science podcasts 2017 and best tech science podcasts 2017 by Player.fm. Further it got the best science podcast price from Quarz - just to have a few more examples. -Eio (talk) 18:11, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I translated part of the German article on this Podcast. Omega Tau is a science and engineering podcast which has the same right to be on Wikipedia as a book. Since it contains interviews to experts in the fields, it can be used as a source for scientific and technical information exactly as a book. To make an example, the episode about the ISS is an interview to the astronaut Paolo Nespoli. The episode on the Stratospheric Observatory for Infrared Astronomy is a 9 hours long interview to over 20 technicians, scientists and pilots directly involved in the project.

If Omega Tau was a scientific book with articles from its guests, no one would have doubts about the sufficient relevance for a Wikipedia article. -Eio (talk) 17:41, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- I'm responding to your comment to my delete !vote and your comment here as well. The actual source that I'd love to look at is a WIRED Germany article that supposedly wrote about the podcast per the German version of this page (the dead link is supposedly here: [2]). I couldn't find it on archive.org though-- do you happen to have an archived version of it? The Quartz article also does help to establish notability. But Wikipedia requires that articles have "significant coverage"-- I tend to personally air on the side of being permissive, so if the Wired piece is detailed enough along with the Quartz piece, I'd be inclined to change to a weak Keep !vote, but the 'player.fm' pieces are just random playlists that seemed to have been generated by staff with no content.
- In response to your second comment-- just because a place interviews notable people or talks about notable things does not make it notable enough for an article. I listen to a large number of podcasts that don't qualify as Wikipedia articles because they aren't notable in themselves even though I really like their content. In this case, I still don't see enough to justify the article being kept (but I can definitely be swayed-- I just didn't find the sources in my own search). Nomader (talk) 04:25, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here is something from [ https://www.wired.de/collection/life/wissenschaft-podcasts-liste-weltraum-forschung-audio Wired.de] about Omega Tau. Unfortunately I cannot find the original link from the German article. A few more references: epcc, Flarm

In general, I suggest that if it is not clear that an article must be deleted, it is a good idea to leave it. Some interested reader might find it and the uninterested reader will not be disturbed from it. That is one of the great advantages of an online encyclopedia. It can be huge, but still the reader does not loos time with content he is not searching for. -Eio (talk) 12:06, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 18:42, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:29, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:38, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:Notability (media) by any metrics. Unreferenced, mostly, too. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:54, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just not seeing significant coverage for a scientific podcast (even seeing discussion above) to satisfy WP:N. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:58, 7 January 2018 (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.