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 to PLOS. It's a stretch to say there's an actual consensus to merge, but it was mentioned a couple of times and WP:ATD argues for it. This should be a limited merge, just enough to give a redirect some reasonable context. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:04, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PLOScast[edit]

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

I'm not seeing much WP:GNG or WP:WEBCRIT for this podcast, as it is very specific to PLOS and has not been reviewed outside of the PLOScast blog. News articles listed are primarily announcements of academic guests on the podcast. Recommend redirect to PLOS, the company that makes the podcasts, and make it a section. The specific titles for the episodes are not needed either. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:06, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:08, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:08, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:08, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:08, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

keep So "very specific" applies to ORCID, but not (as ever) to DC and Marvel? We have the most trivial of podcasts and vlogs covered, but if they're on a serious topic, then they're 'too specific'? Andy Dingley (talk) 21:26, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant is that the sources provided are affiliated with the PLOS organization. Any organization can put out podcasts, so what makes this one generally notable that it needs a fully detailed episode list? I'm trying to figure out how it is more notable that Jay_Mohr#Podcast or Pat Monahan's Patcast, both of which get mentions from their guests. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:54, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:38, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. No significant coverage in independent sources. Not even sure it merits a mention in PLOS.--Pontificalibus (talk) 18:47, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:40, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge. I don't see any evidence of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. It seems reasonable to have a paragraph or so at PLOS though. Gnome de plume (talk) 13:50, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not seeing significant independent coverage. PLOS itself is notable, but that is not an argument PLOScast is by default either. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:33, 21 December 2017 (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.