 | This article was nominated for deletion on March 18, 2020. The result of the discussion was delete. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
| This article was tagged for speedy deletion under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion but a reviewing administrator or uninvolved experienced editor (DESiegel (talk)) declined the request on the basis that: A number of additional sources, compared to the deleted version, several of which look to be RS and have some depth of coverage. Not sufficiently similar for a G4 speedy delete. This article should not be tagged again for speedy deletion under the same criterion and, unless a valid, separate speedy deletion basis exists, further attempts at deleting this article should be made via the proposed deletion process (prod) if uncontroversial, or the article taken to articles for deletion (AfD) for debate on the merits. Note: this template should be removed once the associated article has survived an AfD debate; or has been significantly changed such that further speedy deletion requests are unlikely. |
This page should not be speedily deleted because...it is supported with evidence, it is a valid podcast and it is one of the most popular harry potter podcasts. This is not being done for promotion-the page doesn't need the promotion. --2602:304:B193:1120:8FF:7CA7:9E78:234C (talk) 21:13, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This page should not be speedily deleted because... the reasons listed for deletion were that the podcast is not notable enough, and that sources were not reliable. The article has been reworked to include more sources. Additionally, the podcast charts highly and has 500,000 subscribers and 30 million downloads. This makes it more notable than some podcasts that currently have Wikipedia articles. Again, I am not affiliated with Mike Schubert or anyone involved in producing the podcast. I am simply a fan of the podcast who believes that it is notable enough for a Wikipedia page. And I have tried to write the article from a neutral point of view - if you believe that it is not written neutrally enough, that can be fixed by you or anyone else who has not listened to the podcast if that is what is needed. But, deleting the page seems extreme. Everything I have presented in the article is a fact or a referenced opinion from someone else. I have not included my own opinions in any way.--Seanreyno (talk) 21:20, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In articles about a creative work, statements like Following his graduation from Rice University, Schubert began to consider creating a podcast, and knew that he wanted to cover a topic in popular culture that many people had passionate feelings about
should not be included unless they are direct or lightly paraphrased quotes, and in that case they should be marked, attributed and cited as quotes. "Schubert has said/writes that he knew...". Wikipedia cannot reasd Schubert's mind, nor can a reader verify what his thoguhts were. But if he said this, that statement could be verified. Also the "Soandso knew..." form is a stable of PR writing. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 22:19, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the suggestion - I have edited that section to be worded more like an encyclopedia entry, and to attribute everything properly. I appreciate the help! Seanreyno (talk) 03:16, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the article was created twice by an SPA. I'm willing to AGF for now, but I suggest the editor not directly edit again and instead discuss desired changes here and gain consensus, or we'll likely have to put a COI tag on the article. —valereee (talk) 15:23, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
