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 keep. PhilKnight (talk) 17:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Skeptoid[edit]

Article lacks reliable sources and appears to be a non-notable webcast. Only meets inclusion criteria if it has been written about in multiple non-trivial reliable sources and that doesn't appear to be the case Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is mentioned by at least one reliable source, included in the external links section of the article. Seems to be notable and important enough for a WP article to me. Northwestgnome (talk) 14:55, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- None of the sources mentioned in the article appeared to meet WP:RS and the standard for notability is multiple. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:53, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - Thousands of ghits but mainly blogs and the like. wp:n and wp:rs are currently not clearly met. Google news has 1. find articles 0. Faradayplank (talk) 00:13, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Well known within its community, or so Google would have me believe. I see two references to it in The Hanford Sentinel in July of last year, and I have no doubt there are more newspaper references that that, but I no longer have access to the right search tools for that. --BenBurch (talk) 05:53, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Link?Geni 11:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://docs.newsbank.com/g/GooglePM/HNSB/lib01585,11AB20B91BE2C370.html - Jul 28, 2007

http://docs.newsbank.com/g/GooglePM/HNSB/lib01585,11ABCA290ECC2D70.html - Jul 30, 2007

--BenBurch (talk) 17:34, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neither link lead anywhere. The caption is something about bigfoot. Confused... Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You gotta buy the articles. --BenBurch (talk) 18:08, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For those of us who don't have subscriptions can you make the contents temporarily available somewhere or e-mail the contents to me? Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:11, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can't sorry. --BenBurch (talk) 18:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Skeptoid appears to be very notable, a quick google finds several articles about Skeptoid. What definition of 'non-trivial reliable source' and 'non-notable' are you using? --Ppgardne 16:37, 29 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ppgardne (talk • contribs)

The usual definition. Please can you cite specific RSs for us to consider as just pointing to google is not very specific. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link. Now why is the burden of proof on other Wikipedians? You marked the article for deletion hence maybe you should do a little research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ppgardne (talk • contribs) 18:38, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - assertions of notability, but not much in reliable sources. If you can't strengthen it, it's gonna fail the verifiability and notability tests alike. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "notability", "multiple", "non-trivial", and "reliable sources" are such subjective terms as to be almost meaningless. IMO, Skeptoid is a very notable podcast. --TheAlphaWolf (talk) 16:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is one of the main skeptical podcasts and is therefore of note. It is currently ranked number 13 in science podcasts on iTunes. This is a major venue for people to download podcasts and I think that it demonstrates that even among science podcasts it has enough listeners to be notable. —Fiziker ^t 02:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Skeptoid is an official testing org for the Randi Challenge. Not quite the "major award" criterion in web notability but a notable achievement all the same. It is also the podcast counterpart to a commercially sold book:

http://www.amazon.com/Skeptoid-Critical-Analysis-Pop-Phenomena/dp/1434821668

Mindme (talk) 18:50, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No comment on this deletion debate, but that book is published by "CreateSpace - on-demand self publishing", and thus is no assertion of notability at all. --Stormie (talk) 01:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it is decided to keep skeptoid, then Dogma Free America should also pass.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mindme/Dogma_Free_America

Mindme (talk) 15:00, 2 July 2008 (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.