Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Futility Closet Podcast episodes

Add links
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 delete. T. Canens (talk) 08:25, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Futility Closet Podcast episodes[edit]

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

List of Futility Closet Podcast episodes (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)

The futility closet podcast is not notable and so this list does not meet any of the standards of LISTN. Should be redirected to Futility Closet or perhaps even just deleted (Note: an attempt to redirect was reverted). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:00, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:41, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:41, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Futility Closet is notable, and this is a list of its episodes. The list contains links to the original podcasts and is a valuable resource for historians and recreational math students looking for the original material. Futility Closet has a lot of links within Wikipedia so it is of interest to many related topics.
User:Barkeep49 notes that "an attempt to redirect was reverted" What he does not mention is that this attempt was to simply change the page to a redirect without going through the deletion process. This seems sneaky to me and is definitely not the right way to delete a page.--Toploftical (talk) 16:17, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Toploftical the podcast is a part of the company. The company is notable. I am asserting that this part of the company is not independently notable. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:51, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies as I was on mobile before and didn't see the part about how we got here. Boldly redirecting something isn't sneaky, especially given my edit summary of Podcast does not appear to be notable. Since it is not notable a list of its episodes doesn't really pass WP:LISTN. Restoring redirect but is of course a form of soft deletion. In this instance as I found the article through New Page Patrol, I was simply following standard NPP procedure. When there was disagreement I brought the article here as a form of consensus building. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:31, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:21, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Deletion
On 14 September 2017 User:Ronz deleted the entire contents of this page and replaced it with a redirect to Futility Closet.
On 23 April 2019 I (User:Toploftical) restored the entire list by simply reverting Ronz's edit.
On 24 April 2019 User:Barkeep49 reverted my edit taking it back to a redirect.
To Barkeep49: You say that you "found the article through New Page Patrol"   New Page Patrol?? What new page? The page has always been there. No new page has been created. I believe more than ever that this is an attempt to make an end-run around the standard deletion process.
Then you reintroduce the confusion between the parent article and the list stating above that "Boldly redirecting something isn't sneaky, especially given my edit summary of Podcast does not appear to be notable. Since it is not notable a list of its episodes doesn't really pass WP:LISTN." But, as I pointed out before, the podcast is notable as was established here:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Futility Closet Podcast
You also seem to be trying to make a distinction between "the company" and the podcast when you say, "the podcast is a part of the company. The company is notable." What company? I thought that Futility Closet was the name of "the company". If the "company" is notable, where is the article about it? If the article Futility Closet is about the company, then your implication that the list inherits the non-notability of the parent article is nonsense.--Toploftical (talk) 15:54, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
When an article is created from a redirect is is considered a new article and enters the new page queue. So this is why when you recreated the article from a redirect it entered through the new page queue - see more at WP:NPPREDIRECT which also shows why what I did is not an end run around anything but rather part of a process which I was following. As noted at Futility Closet the company is not just a podcast it is "a blog, podcast, and database". So in my reading the company as a whole can be notable but not the podcast itself. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:07, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete: The article is simply a directory of episodes. Wikipedia is not a directory nor venue for advertising. --Ronz (talk) 16:07, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • *Strong Keep: I understand now why the page might have shown up on New Page Patrol for the technical reason you mentioned. Nevertheless, it is NOT a new page. The page existed long before Ronz replaced it by a redirect.

You say that in your reading "the company as a whole can be notable but not the podcast itself." In my reading the podcast and the company are synonymous. Which of us is the gets to be the official reader?

Apparently the data base exists to support the podcast and the blog. What are you saying: 1) the podcast is notable but the data base is not? 2) the data base is notable but the podcast is not? 3) the podcast and the database together are notable but neither is notable on its own? 4) The combination of podcast, data base, and blog together are notable but no subset of these three is. Seems like a nitpick to me. I expect you will say, "All three together are notable and that is why the previous attempt to delete the parent article was rejected; but the list of episodes is not notable because it is just about the podcast and the podcast is not notable."

You are worried about advertising. I just now picked a WP list at random: List of Game of Thrones characters. I suppose that list could be considered advertising. The show is still airing after all. I personally have no interest in this show and think that the list is silly. However, many people are interested in this topic and, because of that, I would strongly object to someone trying to delete it. (Are you going to try to delete that list, by the way?) Let us not even think about the thousands of WP pages devoted to Pokémon. Now that stuff is even sillier IMHO, but what harm does it do? (Sorry if I have offended any Pokemon fans).

I have no connection with Futility Closet. I do not much follow the "historical curiosities" part of the site (but many do). I come at it from the recreational mathematics side. Most recreational mathematicians follow Futility Closet and this list is a valuable resource for them. There are significant mathematical results that first saw the light of day in this podcast or blog.--Toploftical (talk) 22:13, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at WP:LISTN I see the statement, "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources." If by 'list topic' they mean the parent article (Futility Closet in this case) there are reliable sources such as Wired Magazine that have indeed recommended the podcast (this source is in fact cited in Futility Closet). I could cite others. I should also point out that many of the individual podcasts in the list are cited on various pages within WP. Finally, I note that the FC page gets about 200 hits a month. Does that make it notable?--Toploftical (talk) 20:28, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as there is no significant coverage of the subject (ie. the episodes as a group) in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Which leads to a fundamental WP:LISTN failure since notability is not being demonstrated. Evidently, this is not a discussion on whether the Futility Closet article should be deleted or not, so we should focus on the matter at hand, the list of episodes. This article is solely sourced to one WP:PRIMARY source, the podcast itself, which means that the article is not adequately sourced. I agree with the calls that wikipedia is not a directory or a means of promotion; previous consensus is also in favor of deletion. RetiredDuke (talk) 22:37, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this improperly sourced LISTCRUFT. Trillfendi (talk) 13:03, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per RetiredDuke and Coolabahapple. Also note that Toploftical !voted three times. —⁠烏⁠Γ (kaw) │ 21:43, 04 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Withdraw oppose Obviously the consensus is for delete. You have convinced me that this page violates official WP policy. I guess it is the underlying WP policy that I disagree with. Ah well, I tried. So sad to see it go.--Toploftical (talk) 22:15, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge with Futility Closet - not notable enough for stand alone article - does not meet WP:GNG - completely lacking in references to reliable independent sources - Epinoia (talk) 01:08, 9 May 2019 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Futility_Closet_Podcast_episodes&oldid=896406364"