Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/This Week in Science (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 redirect to Kiki Sanford. Content can be merged from behind the redirect at editorial discretion. Daniel (talk) 01:32, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This Week in Science (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 meet WP:GNG. The previous deletion discussion ended in keep because some editors claimed that lots of blogs mention the podcast, which does absolutely nothing to establish notability. After doing some google searches I found that Kiki Sanford has written for sciencemag.org so any sources from that magazine are not independent. I came across a few trivial mentions in various sources and I wouldn't be surprised if Kiki is notable, but the podcast does not WP:INHERIT her notability. I found a single source that has slightly more than a trivial mention, but it's still less than 100 words of content (source I found). TipsyElephant (talk) 01:23, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 01:23, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 01:23, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and condense (or redirect) to Kiki Sanford. The keep arguments in the previous AFD provided assertions but no actual evidence of notability, basically a combination of WP:ILIKEIT, WP:ITEXISTS and WP:ASSERTN. I am not finding any evidence of WP:WEBCRIT and especially not WP:GNG. None of the current 3 sources in the article are independent: the site itself, Dr. Sanford's resume, and the ACF Newsource ref. which appears to be a press release. The fastweb.it source is a passing mention, although it makes the very bold assertion of "undoubtedly" the most famous science podcast in the world. There is a brief profile published by UC Davis, which is not very independent. The YouTube Channel has 14.5k subscribers (is that a lot? I don't know YouTube or podcast trends), and the Twitter account has 4.5k followers. (Science Friday has over 173k YouTube subscribers, so maybe the "most famous in the world" claim is in fact doubtable). The podcast seems to pop up several podcast directories, but that of course doesn't make it notable. The podcast's rather commonplace title somewhat hinders research (false positives). If there is no independent, significant coverage, then this cannot realistically be expanded without becoming more promotional, essentially a second official website. Lastly, I think it's just a bit unnerving that the official site invites fans (minions?) to edit the show's Wikipedia article as a "Minion project". --Animalparty! (talk) 05:03, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Kiki Sanford. Fails WP:RPRGM per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 01:17, 24 July 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.