Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skeptiko

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 JoshuaZ 17:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Skeptiko

This article covers a blog with a podcast. ~~The article itself is a list of external links to each individual podcast.~~ (Update: the external linkfarm has been removed, though this does not allay my concerns about the notability of the subject.) The article does not assert its subject's notability, nor am I convinced that this is a notable subject per WP:WEB. I had previously prodded this but its original author contested the prod, so I am initiating this AfD. Ante lan ^talk 19:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Skeptiko is noteworthy among the PSI and Parapsychology communities and often attacked by the Skeptical community. Similar skeptical podcasts (The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, Skepticality) have similar Wiki entries despite having fewer notable guests. AD 04:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As you note on your user page, you are the creator of the website in question. Regarding your arguments, they are both arguments to avoid. Noting that similar articles exist is not a reason to keep this article, but instead is a reason to thoroughly examine the others and see if they should also be nominated for deletion. If Skeptiko is noteworthy and the subject of frequent attacks from the skeptical community, then there should be plenty of third-party references to it; will you produce some? Ante lan ^talk 04:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sources are found to give this podcast notability Corpx 06:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Keep if sources are found, delete otherwise. Will change vote based on this. –––Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 08:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I already listed a ton of psi-proponent and skeptic blogs and websites that link to Skeptiko on the Skeptiko discussion page: the daily grail, AMNAP, Michael Prescott's blog, the Public Parapsychology blog, Marcel Cairo's blog and internet webcasts, skeptigator, skeptics guide to the universe, skeptic's dictionary. Many of these sites link to Skeptiko on a very regular basis. Any google search will show the links. If you need something more specific than this, let me know.

Also, Alex did not create the skeptiko page, I did, and I am not affiliated with Skeptiko or Alex. Sdaconsulting 17:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for offering to discuss details. The WP:WEB guideline is a good place to start. It says (emphasis mine):

The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.
The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization.
The content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster; except for: Trivial distribution such as hosting content on entertainment-like sites (GeoCities, Newgrounds, personal blogs, etc.)

I don't see these non-trivial published works, independent of Skeptiko itself, that cover Skeptiko. I don't think they exist (though perhaps someday they will), so at the moment I don't believe skeptiko merits a Wikipedia entry. You also mentioned a Google search: There is no google hit policy (GHIT) per se. If you do want to look at google searches, you may want to revise the search from "skeptiko" to link:skeptiko.com. This leads to about 60 wordpress and blogspot blogs which link to the site - not sufficient to demonstrate notability.

That search misses a huge number of discussions of skeptiko. Sdaconsulting 19:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Google News search, including a search of the archives, returns 2 results, both press releases from a firm called "PR Leap.com" that advertises itself as offering "free press release distribution" Again, I do not believe that this constitutes a notable subject, though it may certainly become one in the future. Ante lan ^talk 17:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Soft delete What makes Skeptiko different from The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe and Skepticality is that the latter are notable as official podcasts of already notable entities. Skeptiko needs to have been mentioned in magazines, newspapers, etc. to demonstrate its notability, or be the official podcast of something or another notable. I support a soft delete (meaning that the article isn't permanently blocked from re-creation) because Skeptiko appears to be fairly new and may gain notability in the future. The guests are indeed notable. What's missing is their mention of the podcast in their books or articles. Since that may happen, but hasn't happened yet, soft delete.--Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 18:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Newspapers and magazines? How quaint. Skeptiko is a podcast! Radin and Sheldrake mention Skeptiko on their websites, Sheldrake multiple times, and both are very notable figures. I haven't checked the others, but I expect some of the other notable guests of Skeptiko have also mentioned Skeptico. The bottom line is Skeptiko is one of the most important popular media outlets for the discussion of psi phenomena and parapsychology. Sdaconsulting 19:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Podcasts generally are mentioned in newspapers or magazines when they reach notability. That's not quaint, it's a measure of notability. I'm a fan of Skeptiko. When thousands of people like me tune in, it will be mentioned in print. I'm not saying it doesn't deserve a Wikipedia article at some point, just not yet. Give it some time and I'm sure it will. Soft delete. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 22:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia also maintains other "quaint" traditions, such as requiring reliable sources. You've made multiple comments to the effect of "Skeptiko is popular", but you haven't demonstrated coverage by non-trivial published works, and you haven't demonstrated that the site has won a well-known, independent award. As I've mentioned before, this doesn't mean that the site won't become notable in the future, but by all appearances, this site - established in January of this year, with an Alexa rank of over 4 million - is not notable right now. Ante lan ^talk 20:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No one said the skeptiko website is notable or high-traffic compared to other websites. Red herring. The podcast itself is notable in the skeptical and parapsychology communities. The hundreds of online references to it, links to it, and discussions of skeptiko content make that clear. The podcast has been linked to and discussed by many of the very notable people who have appeared on it. Holding up an ironclad bar of dead-tree media or broadcast media mention is frankly silly in 2007. This podcast is very well known in the relevant communities I mentioned -- will anyone even bother to dispute this? Sdaconsulting 19:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"What's missing is their mention of the podcast in their books or articles"

How about this? And this? And this?

Those are better sources. Are you confident they meet "Significant coverage"? WP:N --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 20:13, 15 August 2007 (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.