This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Podcasting, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of notable podcasts and podcast-related information on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PodcastingWikipedia:WikiProject PodcastingTemplate:WikiProject Podcastingpodcasting
Hello Calliopejen1, I was a little confused by the reasoning for the submission being declined. Is there a policy against having a list of unlinked things? WP:LISTCRIT states that "While notability is often a criterion for inclusion in overview lists of a broad subject, it may be too stringent for narrower lists; one of the functions of many lists on Wikipedia is providing an avenue for the retention of encyclopedic information that does not warrant separate articles, so common sense is required in establishing criteria for a list," which seems to indicate this list should be fine. If I narrow the list down to podcasts that already have Wikipedia pages I would have less than a dozen entries in the list. Would that pass an AfC? TipsyElephant (talk) 19:42, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
TipsyElephant, that guideline also says, inclusion criteria should be "unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources". Having a list of every music podcast that ever existed is clearly untenable and would include so much cruft (anyone can distribute a crappy podcast...), and I'm unaware of any objective criteria we could use other than Wikipedia's notability policy -- but if you have an idea of objective criteria and want to add sources indicating that your listed podcasts meet those criteria, that would be another approach other than just listing blue-linked podcasts. If you use the rule about existing articles and there are fewer than a dozen entries on the list, it might be better to have a broader list but I don't know exactly what the scope would be. BTW I think that there are a lot of very dubious podcast lists already existing in Wikipedia but I don't have the energy to nominate them for deletion... Calliopejen1 (talk) 04:01, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Calliopejen1: the criteria I was using was that there is at least one independent and reliable secondary source that has more than a trivial mention of the podcast (between 50-100 words dedicated specifically to the podcast). I'm not citing distribution platforms like Apple Podcasts or personal websites or blogs. I don't think anyone who makes a crappy podcast is able to meet that requirement and some Wikipedians seem to think that these sources indicate notability (i.e. WP:100WORDS). I could check WP:RSN if you're afraid they aren't reliable. TipsyElephant (talk) 16:03, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Calliopejen1: I'm aware that WP:GNG generally requires more than one independent and reliable secondary sources with more than a trivial mention of the subject and that some editors expect WP:THREESOURCES. Would you prefer to have two or three references for every entry? TipsyElephant (talk) 16:11, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I could make a list on the talk page and provide three good sources for each podcast that doesn't have a blue link and if I'm unable to do that then the podcast could be removed from the list. That way the article doesn't get overly cluttered with references. TipsyElephant (talk) 16:18, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
TipsyElephant, I've gone ahead and accepted it. At this point, I think reasonable minds could differ, which is basically the criterion I use for reviewing! I'm not sure how I personally feel but you've convinced me that it is not clearly inappropriate. Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:41, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
