Talk:The History of Rome (podcast)

Origins should be re-written in a more formal manner similar to the rest of Wikipedia.

Right now it's written more as an anecdote than a section of an encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.227.148.135 (talk) 00:00, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Why would this podcast not be notable?

Sadly the person who added the notability tag did not make a case for the non-notability, but I'll extend the courtesy of waiting a while for that user to make the case. In my opinion, the notability of the article's subject should be without question in part because it established Mike Duncan as a figure of public importance and is immediately germane to his first book - both things that Wikipedia also covers. But then what do I know? Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:03, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

@Hobbitschuster: there isn't a single reliable source cited in the article that would demonstrate that this passes the general notability guidelines or the subject-specific notability guideline for web content. To demonstrate the notability of a subject on Wikipedia requires that significant coverage in independent and reliable secondary sources exists. Right now the sources pretty much amount to WP:SOCIALMEDIA, WP:BLOGS, WP:INTERVIEWs, and other WP:SPS. Do not remove the tag until notability has been demonstrated. TipsyElephant (talk) 20:13, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello P Aculeius, the two sources you found are a decent start. Would you mind linking to the other sources you referred to in your edit summary ("and there appear to be many more than the two I mentioned")? TipsyElephant (talk) 10:14, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

You could just have done a Google search for "Mike Duncan History of Rome Podcast" (with or without quotation marks and with any capitalization) and narrowed the results to "news". That would have brought up both of the ones I cited within the first couple of pages of results, as well as a number of others that I could have used instead—I chose two of the most visible that appeared to be directly relevant to the subject of this article, but I didn't explore them all. But this is what you should have done before proposing deletion. When you claim that the subject of an article lacks notability, it's your responsibility to undertake a reasonable search for evidence of notability; not other people's responsibility to prove you wrong. P Aculeius (talk) 12:35, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

You make a lot of assumptions and you don't follow WP:AGF. TipsyElephant (talk) 21:00, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

I didn't say you acted in bad faith: I said you failed to follow WP:BEFORE, and thus shifted the burden to other editors to find sources and cite them in order to save the article from automatic deletion. That's not how deletion is supposed to work: if you don't think that an article's existing sources are good enough to demonstrate notability, you're supposed to make a reasonable effort to see whether any better sources exist. And if a simple Google search turns up multiple sources, it's hard to believe that was done.

Instead of Wikilawyering, like you did in 2022, embedding links to ten separate pages and multiple policies to justify tagging the article as non-notable, and then bossing around the person who questioned the tagging—you could have devoted that time and energy to determining whether suitable sources demonstrating notability existed.

Quoting me and asking me to provide you with proof of what I said, again evidently without having made any effort, and citing more policies at me instead of following up on what I told you about locating sources, implies that you still refuse to accept that this is a notable topic, and are going to try to refute every source, claim, or other statement that contradicts your position. So perhaps you should ask yourself: is your goal to improve this article, and others like it, or to act as a gatekeeper against topics you don't think are important? P Aculeius (talk) 23:46, 7 October 2024 (UTC)