Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RoPeCast

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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:36, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RoPeCast (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)

From the removed PROD tag: "Searches turned up very little about this podcast, a few trivial mentions, clearly does not pass WP:GNG. And unfortunately the "Saarland state award in higher education" is not a notable award." Calton | Talk 02:15, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - First, sorry to have missed the original prod. Searches of both the podcast and the award returned virtually zero. The award is a regional educational award. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:12, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• As the original author I of course vote keep. I've so far presented my arguments to the author of the "prod" and repeat them here:

  • According to WP:WEB the award must be "well-known" and "independent". In my opinion an award by a federal government does qualify here with respect to both criteria. I think the wording "well-known" was chosen intentionally not to re-use the notion to be defined "notability" or "notable" (which were used in the 'nomination'). I thus consider it a Wikipedia-independent criterion and in no way higher (as indicated by Onel5969 on his talk page) or lower than these standards, but unrelated and having the semantic flexibility needed for its various applications throughout the notability guidelines. Otherwise its use would introduce a circular logic.
  • Furthermore you cannot apply Wikipedia's notability criteria (which the nomination reasoning does) to the award in order to judge the notability of the phenomenon in question. That would be introducing an inheritance dependency that is explicitly excluded in the guidelines (although the examples given work in a descendent fashion, I think this rule must hold in an inverted manner as well in order to be coherent).
  • A regional award... Any award issued by any federally-organised subordinate entity is by definition regional. Would you argue the same way if it was the state of California that awarded the prize? And if you make a difference there, would that in turn be more notable then a prize awarded by the state of Rhode Island? I think that's an unjustified focus on 'body size' not to mention any parts thereof ;-)
  • Secondly how can anything language-related not be regional? As an offer to learners of English as a foreign language it is very unlikely that "well-known" can ever stretch to large areas of the world in an 'un-regional' fashion, namely those speaking English natively.
  • With respect to the original 'nominator's' search for references ... No offense, but don't you think the "google it" approach is a tad to simplistic and superficial to be a decision criterion here, even if we are dealing with an online publication as the lemma? No one considered for example that a prize awarded by a German executive organ is very unlikely to officially carry an English name? So of course any search for the English translation results in very little hits. Instead one needs to consider Landespreis für Hochschullehre Saarland. Any search engine should be a lot more obliging if used with the appropriate search terms. ;-) --chris 論 09:03, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Would you argue the same way if it was the state of California that awarded the prize? Yes. Next question?
• Secondly how can anything language-related not be regional? Two words: Berlitz and VOA. I could add others, but that should suffice.
• ... but don't you think the "google it" approach is a tad to simplistic and superficial to be a decision criterion? It's your job to prove notability, not the nominator's. --Calton | Talk 11:28, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• VOA carries its regional character in the name.
• I wasn't saying that I want the nominator to prove notability, but that he interpretes the guidelines in a way that is at least debatable if not contradictory. I say the award is independent (as the awarding government is not involved in the production of the podcast), and it is well-known (and, yes, regional) prize. I don't see how regional and well-known are mutually exclusive. Accordingly, one precisely defined notability criterion was met, not mentioning the secondary publications that are also present. --chris 論 12:49, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• VOA carries its regional character in the name . That's either breathtakingly ill-informed or clumsy Wikilawyering. Possibly both. And what's your excuse for Berlitz? --Calton | Talk 00:37, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I accept User:Chrkl's explanation of notability. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:51, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Non-notable podcast, minor coverage, minor regional award. Having read the above discussion I concur with the nom. --Hanyangprofessor2 (talk) 05:09, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:48, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:48, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:48, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Notability tries to rest on a single award, just a few weeks ago, which is a good start, but there's as yet lack of evidence of WP:SUSTAINED notability.GliderMaven (talk) 18:02, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Promotional article, and not important enough to justify rewriting. DGG ( talk ) 01:09, 11 April 2017 (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.