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 Merge.—Kww(talk) 13:07, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Skeptoid (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)

Does not meet WP:WEB notability and does not have independent reliable sources. Article was PRODed too early during article creation in 2008, and has been tagged for needing better references since April 2011. Breno ^talk 03:45, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:01, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:01, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:01, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge There is some coverage in the google news archive [1] and google books [2], perhaps enough for WP:GNG, maybe not. I think merge is the best step forward as there are sources mention Skeptoid in association with the host. If the content can be improved it could possibly be split off at that point. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:50, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge Although I think it should be considered notable, most of the sources that I find are only borderline WP:RS. Skeptoid is a go-to site for many writers who are looking for a skeptic's input on pop phenomena but that could be represented by merging this content into a section redirect on Dunning's page.Allecher (talk) 01:02, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the recent updates to the page I would like to change my vote to a full Keep. Allecher (talk) 16:16, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge Agree with the above. And to specify, Brian Dunning (skeptic) is the merge target. --S. Rich (talk) 03:33, 7 July 2012 (UTC) PS: I have cut&pasted most of the material into Dunning's article. Merger accomplished -- if skeptical, please compare :-) . 03:45, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note that merger, with a redirect, preserves the richly sourced content. Indeed, the Skeptoid article material is (now) already in Dunning's article. Separate articles only weakens both of them. A combined article is stronger. --S. Rich (talk) 19:30, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Subject appears notable and content is richly sourced. "Merge" recommendations don't make much sense... merge with WHAT? Belchfire (talk) 18:33, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  They recommend merging with Brian Dunning. CityOfSilver 18:37, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  "I think merge is the best step forward as there are sources mention Skeptoid in association with the host." "...that could be represented by merging this content into a section redirect on Dunning's page." "And to specify, Brian Dunning (skeptic) is the merge target." Gee, I don't have any idea where they're suggesting this be merged... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:39, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The podcast is popular, award winning, and has generated a book (plus three additional, self-published books.) It's been mentioned on Slate.com and Discovery.com. It seems noteworthy enough to warrant its own Wikipedia page.Dustinlull (talk) 18:46, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I see that Dustinlull has done some updating on the page the last day or so. It would not take much more to change my previous Merge vote into a full-fledged "Keep". Why are we in a hurry to delete this one, anyway? Allecher (talk) 03:27, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:44, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge To Brian Dunning (skeptic) as the current coverage is not enough to justify an independent article.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:56, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There has been improvement already in the last few days. Seems notable for own page. Also would like to see Brian Dunning (skeptic) become the default page for the name Brian Dunning. No idea how to do that myself. The current default got 263 hits for the month of June. Brian Dunning (skeptic) got 3,207 views for that same period. Sgerbic (talk) 19:06, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Certain blogs have reached a level of notability that they become references or social sources themselves. Pharyngula and snopes are two of the most notable. Moreover, Skeptoid's Alexa rank is in the 100,000 range, which places it in the top 0.02% of websites worldwide. Maybe not Wikipedia level, but that's at the top of skeptical science worldwide. It is one of the go to websites for numerous skeptical writers. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 19:58, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Gets mentioned in notable places, as Dustinlull has said, and won a notable award. Dream Focus 18:27, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Brian Dunning (author). Even after improvements still barely passes WP:WEB.--Otterathome (talk) 19:15, 12 July 2012 (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.