Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SF Signal

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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) TipsyElephant (talk) 14:30, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SF Signal

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Does not pass WP:GNG. There are some trivial mentions of the blog in some sources like this Slate article, but I couldn’t find anything in-depth that would demonstrate significant coverage. I’m unsure whether LocusMag is independent or reliable. For instance, they’ve posted updates about the status of the SF Signal website which isn’t necessarily bad, but seems rather specific and involved for such a small website. A lot of the posts don’t even say who the author is and it appears that anyone can submit a blog, book, or podcast for review. It also appears that the magazine’s website has republished/hosted content from SF Signal's website here. It appears that “SF Signal” is a term used in science so a lot of WP:GHITS come from science websites that have nothing to do with the blog and trying to search Google Scholar is a nightmare. It might be possible to claim that the blog passes WP:WEBCRIT because it won an award, but WEBCRIT asserts that anything meeting its requirements should generally still have some coverage from independent and reliable secondary sources. TipsyElephant (talk) 12:29, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Withdrawn by nominator" I was expecting this to be a relatively uncontroversial deletion, but WP:WEBCRIT appears to hold significantly different amounts of weight among different editors and different awards. I'll refrain from opening any AfDs for a while and reread documentation relevant to deletions. TipsyElephant (talk) 13:48, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 12:29, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 12:29, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 12:29, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 12:29, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 12:29, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This won three Hugo Awards, one of the most major awards one can win in sci-fi and fantasy, as well as a fairly prestigious award overall in literature as a whole. It's kind of like the Oscars of the sci-fi and fantasy world, which is why efforts by groups such as the Sad Puppies to hijack the awards gained so much attention. It also won an award from SFX magazine, which is a well-known and respected genre magazine. Locus Magazine is independent of SF Signal, although they did host the podcast. As far as how their submissions go, not anyone could submit something - it had to go through an editorial and factchecking process. It wasn't like a random person could write something and then have it posted by the next day, without any barriers to publication. It's part of why the site is usable as a RS on Wikipedia. Now as far as the science term goes, there is a hatnote at the top of the page for anyone who may be looking for the specific science term. Possible other ways to resolve the science term point is to create a redirect for SF signal that goes to the term or to disambiguate the website article along the lines of "SF Signal (website)" and put a hatnote at the top of the science term's page.

There could be more coverage on the article itself, but notability is pretty clearly established by way of the awards. The lack of other coverage on the page doesn't mean that an article shouldn't exist or that other coverage doesn't exist, just that it likely hasn't been added yet. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:40, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(As an aside, it was nominated for Hugo Award for Best Fancast in the first two years of the award's existence (2012, 2013) before winning in its third nomination year (2014). In those two years (2012,2013) which were the only years in which it was nominated, it also won the Hugo Award for Best Fanzine) Jclemens (talk) 22:55, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I found info about why the podcasts are on Locus Online: they're archiving them. SFS closed up back in 2016 and as things are wont to do with online content, the link for the podcast eventually went dead. Locus Online offered to host the material so that it's still available. They weren't involved in the creation of the podcast or its running, they're just archiving the material. That a major publisher would consider the podcast worth preserving is a fairly big sign of notability in my opinion. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:51, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep SF Signal does appear in a number of secondary sources. And WP:WHYN tells us that WP:GNG is in place "so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic". That is already the case as the article stands now, so I see no problem here. SF Signal has also repeatedly won a major award. That's a criterion to have an article aside from coverage in secondary sources according to Wikipedia:Notability (books) and Wikipedia:Notability (films). It is also a criterion in WP:WEBCRIT. Sure the phrasing there is "may be notable" and "should probably have an article", rather than "should have an article". But there's no problem whatsoever with verifiability, and the award has a Wikipedia page. And, in contrast, what would be the benefit for Wikipedia in not having this article, that would outweigh the guideline that says that we probably should have one? Daranios (talk) 14:54, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Daranios: I don't know if the article is much better than half a paragraph. There is less than 300 words of content. My deletion rationale is a comparable length to the article itself. I would consider the article a stub or start at best. TipsyElephant (talk) 23:19, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TipsyElephant: I don't say this is a long article, but I'd say it counts for at least a full paragraph. Test: If I had everything in straight text without section breaks and continued writing, would it be awkward for the reader? I'd definitely say yes. But if you are doubtful on that point, shouldn't we discuss about a merge rather than a deletion according to the WP:AtD/WP:ATD-M part of Wikipedia's deletion policy? Or in other words, what again would be the advantage of deletion for the reader? Daranios (talk) 10:57, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Oh, look Hugo Award for Best Fancast is a featured list. This is why a "What links here" is a good idea for part of WP:BEFORE. Oh, and WP:WEBCRIT #2 appears to be the relevant "has won a major award" article which apply to various forms of content. Jclemens (talk) 22:27, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jclemens: I was well aware that it won that award, which you would know if you read my rationale for deletion. I was actually looking into getting that article delisted or even deleted/merged, which is how I came across this stub of an article. Basing the notability of one article on the quality of another article also seems dubious. Would you argue that everything on the Hugo Award for Best Fancast list is notable enough for a stand-alone article simply because it won the award? TipsyElephant (talk) 23:23, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, your assertion of awareness is impeached by your nomination. That is, you did note an (unspecified) award win in your nomination statement, but the only interpretation of your actions consistent with AGF is that you do not understand how important the Hugo award is. The fact that you're apparently un-ironically asking if winning a Hugo makes every winner notable (it does) is inconsistent with your having enough knowledge of either science fiction as a genre or Wikipedia notability policies to reliably start appropriate AfDs. Look at what ReaderofthePack has already added, and withdraw this nomination, please. Jclemens (talk) 23:59, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The contents of an article don't determine notability per WP:ARTN, but I'll take a look at the sources tomorrow and see if they have more than trivial mentions of the subject. TipsyElephant (talk) 00:33, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sorry but the conversation is taking this deeper and deeper into IDONTLIKEIT territory. Also WTF trying to get rid of the best fancast article? Artw (talk) 04:10, 30 July 2021 (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.