Talk:Political Climate (podcast)
 | This page was proposed for deletion by TipsyElephant (talk · contribs) on 5 August 2023. |
 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Notability
[edit](written in response to a tag from TipsyElephant that the subject matter is not notable enough — thank you for reviewing and helping make the page better)
I appreciate that the podcast is not mega famous, but I think it is nonetheless notable enough for a wiki page. I say this for several reasons:
1. It has very notable guests. This includes current UN Secretary-General António Guterres, former US Secretary of State John Kerry, and environmental activist Greta Thunberg (in addition to Arnold Schwarzenegger, the podcast's benefactor)
2. It is featured in 'podcasts to listen to' lists e.g. here and here. Also, it won the 2022 Cleanie Award for people's choice Top Clean Energy and Sustainability Podcast (see here )
3. It is featured & discussed on other podcasts e.g. here, here, and here.
For completeness, see some further sources that explain/discuss the podcast (in addition to the references currently cited on the wiki page):
https://www.greenenergyfutures.ca/episode/ms-pyper-goes-to-washington
https://citizensclimatelobby.org/blog/advocacy/podcasts-offer-deeper-dive-into-climate-issues/ Gfoxwood (talk) 00:04, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
- @Gfoxwood: if you disagree with the WP:PROD feel free to remove the tag before the end of the seven day period to prevent the article from being deleted. However, the podcast must pass Wikipedia's notability standards. WP:GNG outlines the expectations, however, you could also look at the SNGs WP:NPODCAST or WP:WEBCRIT. My concern is that most of these sources are either not independent or not reliable (take a look at WP:RSP for a list of commonly discussed sources and community consensus on their reliability). It's also worth noting that subjects do not WP:INHERIT notability from things associated with it. For instance, having notable guests does not make the show notable. TipsyElephant (talk) 16:55, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- ok, you make some fair points. If I can't find more suitable secondary sources then I think I'll fold it into the Greentech Media page (and add more secondary sources for that page – it is looking a bit threadbare).
- If you have a template or example I could use to make this Political Climate 'subpage' (so to speak) of Greentech Media, please let me know Gfoxwood (talk) 11:27, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
- @Gfoxwood: we can WP:MERGE the content into that article. Although, keep in mind that that article also appears to have had its notability questioned. TipsyElephant (talk) 00:32, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
- @Gfoxwood: I just want to double check. Are you open to merging this into Greentech Media? TipsyElephant (talk) 00:24, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
- Hi. I am still open to it, however I have been adding citations to this page (and to Greentech Media) in order to address the perception of non-notability.
- Comparing it to the other podcast pages like Grouse (podcast) and Sawbones (podcast), I thinking that this page is now sufficiently notable on its own. What do you think? Gfoxwood (talk) 12:47, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- @Gfoxwood: generally in a deletion discussion, if someone compares the subject to another Wikipedia article the comparison will be dismissed as WP:OTHERSTUFF and the other article might be nominated for deletion as well. However, I'll demonstrate why Sawbones is notable. Sawbones is notable because it has significant coverage in The Washington Post, multiple sources in Vulture [1] [2], and multiple sources in The A.V. Club [3], [4], [5], [6], [7] among a host of other sources. It's also worth noting that the Sawbones book was on the NY Times best seller list for three weeks in a row ([8], [9], [10]) and there is likely coverage of the book elsewhere. All of the sources I've linked to are explicitly listed at WP:RSP as generally reliable, they all contain more than a trivial mention, and they are clearly independent of the subject. It's also worth noting that the article has already gone through an AfD discussion and community consensus was to keep the article. The Grouse podcast is a bit more of a borderline case and if you would like you can go ahead and open an AfD for it. I'll provide a more thorough analysis of your sources as soon as I get a chance. TipsyElephant (talk) 12:41, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
Here is my analysis of your sources:
| Source | Independent? | Significant? | Reliable? | Contributes to notability? |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| GTM | No, the podcast is produced by GTM and the author of the article is the host of the show | Sure | No, the website appears to no have editorial policies or even a list of staff | No |
| Axios | Maybe, this reads like a press release or promotional blurb | Maybe, it's pretty limited in scope | Yes, Axios is listed at RSP as generally reliable | Maybe |
| Dylan Green | No, this is an interview | Sure | No, this is a blog and marketing company | No |
| Canary Media | No, the podcast is funded and hosted by Canary Media | No, this is just a list of episodes | No | No |
| GreenSportsBlog | No, this is an interview | Sure | No, this is a blog and doesn't even disclose who the author is | No |
| Green Energy Futures | Unlikely, in the article it mentions that the host of the podcast spoke at the Pembina Climate Summit which is hosted by the owner of the website | Sure | No, this is a blog owned by a think tank | No |
| Yale Center for Environmental Law & Policy | No, the article states that the podcast was hosted at the Yale Center for Environmental Law & Policy | No | No, this falls somewhere between a press release and student media | No |
| GTM | No, the podcast is produced by GTM and the author of the article is the host of the show | Sure | No, the website appears to have no editorial policies or even a list of staff | No |
| Austrian World Summit | No, the summit is owned/funded by the Schwarzenegger Institute, which funds the podcast | No | No | No |
| Propane | No, this is an interview on a podcast | No | No, this is a podcast on a website with no editorial policies | No |
| ART19 | No, this is the subject of the article so it is a primary source | No | No | No |
| EQ Magazine | Maybe | No, this is basically just a short press release | No, the website doesn't appear to have editorial policies or even a list of staff | No |
| GTM | No, the podcast is produced by GTM and the author of the article is the host of the show | Sure | No, the website appears to have no editorial policies or even a list of staff | No |
| Alex Padilla | No, this is an interview on a senator's blog | Sure | No, this is essentially just a blog owned by a senator | No |
| GTM | No, the podcast is produced by GTM and the author of the article is the host of the show | Sure | No, the website appears to have no editorial policies or even a list of staff | No |
| Cleanie Awards | Maybe, but I wouldn't be surprised if one of the awards sponsors or staff had a connection to GTM | No, although awards are helpful | Maybe, the award isn't independently notable but it does appear to have staff and some level of criteria for selecting award winners | No |
| Citizens' Climate Lobby | Maybe | Yes, this is a decent chunk of prose dedicated specifically to the podcast | No, this is a blog and a lobbying organization | No |
It's also worth noting that most of your sources appear to be involved in the energy industry or are actively involved in changing energy policy. That means your sources have something to gain from promoting the podcast and they are clearly biased. TipsyElephant (talk) 15:01, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
- @TipsyElephant thank you for the time taken to look through all this. I'll respond in the next few days (mainly just to seek clarifications and note some minor points) Gfoxwood (talk) 08:29, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
- Hi, thanks for the patience.
- It slightly puzzles me that media interviews are used so cautiously, but I guess I can't argue with Wiki's carefully-considered policy. Also an fyi that GTM was shut down in early 2021 (which is probably why you can't find any editorial policies or staff showing up on their website), and I would classify the Cleanie Awards as at least a "Maybe" for notability.
- But, all in all, I agree this page doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability standards on its own.
- I'll merge it with the GTM page. Gfoxwood (talk) 10:42, 7 September 2023 (UTC)