Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Very Bad Wizards

Very Bad Wizards

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

Doesn't seem to have any independent coverage, thus making it fail our general notability guidelines. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 19:25, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a work in progress, but I've added some independent sources discussing the podcast (or rather discussing the discussions on the podcast). This podcast is also ranked 2nd in the iTunes category 'philosophy', although I haven't found a way to link to this statistic which is found within iTunes.O. Prytz (talk) 19:51, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Oysteinp: You need news articles, reviews in books, etc. to prove the notability of this podcast; having a high rank on iTunes in specific category doesn't matter if it isn't mentioned anywhere else. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 22:30, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@RileyBugz:I have provided several references to discussions of the podcast and followup discussions of specific episodes/topics. I believe these should be more than enough to prove notability. I find it strange that ranking in iTunes should not speak to its notability. It is the equivalent to a newspapers circulation numbers, which I find highly relevant. Ø. Prytz (talk) 06:21, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Better, but there is only one reliable source that you have cited (The Philosophers' Magazine). All of the rest are blogs, which are not reliable. Also, it should be noted that we don't base things on notability in its traditional sense, but instead on verifiablity (which basically means coverage in reliable sources). RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 11:48, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think I must object to what you say about blogs not being reliable sources for notability. They may of course questionable as sources on matters of fact, but in matters of notability I see no reason for blogs not to be "counted". If a topic or person gains widespread attention in blogs, podcasts, webpages, discussion boards etc, this must in my opinion also count as evidence of notability. The crucial point would be if these sources are independent (not created by e.g. the person in question). In the present case there is at least one "traditional print media" source as well. Ø. Prytz (talk) 15:56, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whether something has gained widespread attention or not isn't what notability determines; as per WP:GNG, it determines whether or not something is covered in reliable sources. Since blogs aren't reliable, they aren't used. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 16:25, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The definition of notability here is quite conventional 'Article and list topics must be notable, or "worthy of notice"', while WP:GNG gives one way in which notability can be determined: 'If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.' The phrasing clearly also allows content that has not been the subject of 'significant coverage in reliable sources', notability just has to be proven in some other way. I would for example say that the most widely circulated newspaper in the country would be notable as a subject by that fact alone, regardless of whether or not that newspaper, as a subject, is the topic of commentary in other newspapers. I also think that the terms 'reliability' and 'verifiability' are being inappropriately linked to 'notability', but that is perhaps a discussion in some other forum. Ø. Prytz (talk) 17:06, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:31, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]