Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Talking Practice

Talking Practice

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

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Talking Practice (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

The first and third references here lack independence from the subject, and the second reference is to a twitter feed. There is no evidence here that the subject qualifies as notable. A Google News search turns up six hits, but some of these are not relevant and the others do not look like independent reliable sources: the first is to a curated set of lectures, not a review or other in-depth discussion about the lectures, and none of the other hits are related to this subject ("talking" and "practice" being two such routine words which happen to co-occur randomly a very few times on the Internet). There are more hits on a general Google search, but these are more vague in terms of their reliability, depth of discussion, and independence from the subject. Looks like a delete from my side. A loose necktie (talk) 12:11, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:15, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:15, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

• Keep, I added a reference from Archinect, and probably others can be found. If something is from Harvard University, it's probably notable. (This isn't the same thing as a king being automatically notable. It's just an observation that when Harvard does something, the world usually pays attention to it.) Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:35, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
• Merge WP:NOTINHERITED reminds us to look at the sourcing for this article on its own merits. In doing so, I see no evidence to support the claim that the world has paid attention to this podcast from a school in Boston. There are shockingly few results from google nor could I find coverage looking in other places. The nom has addressed the inadequacies of the sourcing present in the article now. The inclusion in the list from Architecture conveys no significant coverage that would grant notability. This is the an example of significant coverage of another podcast on that list which is notable. So instead we should have a line or two at Harvard Graduate School of Design as an alternative to deletion and to provide appropriate coverage for our readers. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:20, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

  Well said. A loose necktie (talk) 10:53, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

• Keep, Dezeen reviewed this podcast and stated that it was one of the top fourteen podcasts on the subject of design and architecture. Also, the guests on the podcast are quite renown, many of whom have wikipedia biographies, and speaks to the quality of the production and its significance. https://www.dezeen.com/2019/05/23/architecture-design-podcasts/#disqus_thread

References

This isn't some general list of podcasts, this is about architectural podcasts. Inclusion on such a list remains the kind that does not show notability - indeed only 1 of the podcasts has its own existing Wikipedia entry, 99 PI which I showed an example of significant coverage demonstrating notability about above, and another 1, Monocle on Design, is mentioned in an article on the sponsoring organization which is exactly the sort of inclusion that seems appropriate here (e-flux has an article, with its own troubles, but does not mention the podcast in the article as of this edit only the organization). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:47, 27 May 2019 (UTC)