Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skeptics with a K

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 Merseyside Skeptics Society#Skeptics with a K. Information about the podcast is in the target article. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 16:15, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Skeptics with a K (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Does not pass WP:GNG or WP:WEBCRIT. All the sources are podcasts, blogs, youtube, and other self-published, primary, or unreliable sources. I looked for more sources and found nothing. TipsyElephant (talk) 20:02, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Entertainment, Science, Websites, and England. TipsyElephant (talk) 20:02, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Evidently, many of the references are clearly RS, and the article has been awarded C-Class quality by both Wikipedia:WikiProject Podcasting and Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism for this reason. RS: Metro (British newspaper), BBC Radio Oxford, BBC Radio 5 Live, BBC Radio Merseyside, BBC Radio 4, sv:UR Samtiden (Swedish television programme), New Scientist, Radio City Talk, Liverpool Echo etc. It could be argued that some of the self-published sources should be removed, but there is little doubt that the subject passes GNG and WEBCRIT. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 07:16, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Could you perhaps give a few examples of reliable sources used to support the article, because I cant see them. Your list of broadcasters above seems to be unrelated to the point you are trying to make. Thanks. - Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 07:40, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Look in the References section or use ctrl+F and you'll find all of them. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 10:08, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did my due diligence before commenting above, no need to teach your grandmother to suck eggs. The sources extant are pathetic, and per the nominater, do not pass GNG or WEBCRIT. I cannot understand how you came to such a conclusion. Your list of media sources are not sources for this article, but simply links to their respective articles. The project assessments too are poor, bearing in mind the assessment criteria for RS content. C-Class is way too good. The refs are in fact self-serving refs to the podcast or the parent organisation, which cannot be used to establish notability. Please could you actually show which refs you consider establish notability, rather than brush off my concerns like you did. thanks. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 10:36, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References (current version):

• 1,3,5,6,7,8a,14a,15,17a,18b,19a,20,21b,22a-f,23,24 self-published, non-independent (podcast itself)
• 2, non-independent (website)
• 8b,11,14d,16,18a,19b,25c,27 self-published (blog)
• 8c,9,10,12,13a,13b,14b,14c,21a self-published (podcast)
• 25a self-published (YouTube)
• 4,17b,25b?,25d (perhaps) qualifying source but not about subject
• 26 can't access/unclear

Even the best of these aren't really about the subject - as an example, the BBC cite (25d) is simply introducing an interviewee by saying the guest "also writes the blog Skeptics with a K," which is not the kind of thing that confers notability. I'm not seeing any WP:RS. Agricolae (talk) 12:13, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No conclusion can be drawn based on C-class assessments. For most project, C-class represents the absolute bare minimum of having references, appropriate structure, and general coherence. Further, it is not 'awarded' by a project, but rather by a single editor of unknown expertise (and the first assessment given is usually used to populate the entire set, rather than separate assessments being performed for each project). A C-class assessment is no indication of notability. Agricolae (talk) 11:27, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per nom, this fails GNG, no demonstration of NOTABILITY at all. TNT required, and I dont even think a redirect is necessary to the parent article, which adequately covers this subject in a single paragraph. -Roxy the correctly spelled sceptic. wooF 13:07, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I don't see merge/redirect being viable here either. I don't see anything in the sources that would confer WP:GNG or any sort of independent WP:DUE mention, and the comments at this AfD about sources "somehow" reaching that point appears to be hand-waving. KoA (talk) 21:36, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete complete lack of WP:RS to document anything more than mere existence. I would recommend redirect to Merseyside Skeptics Society but the coverage of the blog there suffers from the same sourcing problems. Agricolae (talk) 20:30, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Merseyside Skeptics Society#Skeptics with a K where it has its own segment as an WP:ATD. Fails WP:RPRGM per nom. Nederlandse failed to analyze the sources in the article. SBKSPP (talk) 23:54, 1 July 2022 (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.