Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Litbits (2nd nomination)

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. ✗plicit 00:20, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Litbits (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Does not pass WP:GNG. The Samantha Ellis source is a WP:BLOG. The Guardian source is trivial. The ABC source might be the only source that is more than a trivial mention, but WP:GNG states that more than one source is generally expected.The remaining sources appear to all be permanently dead links to primary or unreliable sources. When searching there are some WP:GHITS because James Kidd wrote some articles for the South China Morning Post and a journalist named Ron Cerabona has a column at The Canberra Times called “Litbits”. Searching Google Books and Google Scholar yields a few sources discussing a blog by the same name, but full previews are not available for the books and it looks like the blog is by a guy named Bedford so I don’t think it’s related to the radio show. I also couldn’t find anything on newspapers.com related to the radio show. The article is also an orphan except for one of the guest’s pages links to it, but as far as I can tell there isn’t a real redirect target. It’s also worth noting that the article has been tagged for notability issues since 2015.

I previously nominated this for deletion here, but there was WP:NOQUORUM and no prejudice against a speedy renomination. TipsyElephant (talk) 16:35, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 16:35, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 16:35, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 16:35, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I'm not familiar with this content area, so I'm a little unclear on what standards apply. Is a podcast covered more by WP:NMEDIA or by WP:NCORP? If I assume that a podcast is sort of like an unlicensed radio station, WP:NMEDIA says: "Stations that do not require a license to operate ... are not presumed notable just for existing, but may have notability conferred on them by meeting WP:CORP standards. Where verifiable, an unlicensed station ... is not eligible for its own standalone article unless it can be sourced over WP:GNG via reliable source coverage." I can't see the available sourcing meeting the high standards of WP:NCORP, so if this is the appropriate notability standard to apply, then it's probably a Delete. Suriname0 (talk) 23:16, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Suriname0: the WP:PODCASTING WikiProject indicates that WP:WEB is often used for podcasts, which essentially means it needs to either have won an award or garnered WP:SIGCOV. It's also worth noting that WP:NMEDIA is an essay so even if that is the appropriate WP:SNG it's overrided by WP:N. TipsyElephant (talk) 17:05, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per TipsyElephant. I scrolled through the last 5 years of the podcast's Twitter feed to see if there were obscure academic reviews of the podcast, but the only substantive external coverage they linked to was the Guardian article. I don't think the Guardian article + ABC article are enough to meet WP:GNG, as explained in the nom. Suriname0 (talk) 21:33, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:WEB per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 02:13, 9 October 2021 (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.