Shadows at the Door: The Podcast: The available sources are either unreliable or trivial, and the Audio Verse Awards is non-notable.  TipsyElephant ( talk ) 11:24, 3 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio , Entertainment ,  and Popular culture .  TipsyElephant ( talk ) 11:24, 3 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Hello.  I am unsure why this course of action is being pursued so diligently.  - I would dispute that the available sources or unreliable or trivial, particularly as one of the additions yesterday is the primary fantasy convention for the country of Luxembourg, and another is the notable entertainment website Screenrant.  - Shadows at the Door is jointly distributed by notable media company Realm (formally known as Serial Box).  With regard to the notability of The Audio verse Awards, they are cited as awards on the pages of many peer podcasts such as The White Vault , Wolf 359 , Dark Dice , The Call of the Void etc.  This podcast has also featured high value talent such Rahul Kohli (SAG-AFTRA), Dave Fennoy , Jamie Flanagan (WGA) frequent writing partner of Mike Flanagan , Sacha Dhawan (SAG-AFTRA) and Professor Elemental -- all of whom can be linked if IMDB can be used as citations.  AchtungWiki!  ( talk ) 13:57, 3 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep As the person who started the article, I think this has passed notability since the page was created.  PODCAST is an essay which suggests what might indicate notability.  Without placing too much weight on it, included amongst the indicators is being distributed by a notable company; of course notability is not inherited, but Shadows at the Door does tick that box as it is distributed by Realm.  It also says that "Being nominated for such [a notable award] in multiple years may also be considered an indicator of notability" which has also happened with the Audio verse Awards.  Winning an AudioVerse award may not be enough to demonstrate notability on its own, or being nominated multiple times, but it is another indicator of notability.  The general notability guidelines are of prime importance, specifically the topic must have significant coverage in independent reliable sources.  The K. W. Moore source is a longer version of a piece published in Intentions , the magazine of the Wildean Society.  So it easily meets what we need for sourcing.  We need multiple independent reliable sources to establish notability, and I would argue that Kendall Reviews website is also a reliable source.  It has a team of writers and a policy on how it conducts its reviews which I believe satisfies the reliable criterion in WP:GNG.  At just shy of 300 words critically engaging with the podcast, that counts as significant, and it is independent of the subject.  By my reckoning we have multiple independent reliable sources covering the subject.  Richard Nevell ( talk ) 17:35, 4 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Name dropping does not contribute to notability.  Affiliated sources that lack independence do not contribute to notability.  Passing mentions and directory or database listings do not contribute to notability.  Blog posts on Wordpress contribute nothing to notability.  What is required are references to significant, in-depth coverage in multiple, published reliable sources that are entirely independent of the topic.  From what I can see, not a single one of the references now in the article meets that standard.  If I am incorrect, lease let us all know which of the 20 sources now in the article meet that standard.  Cullen328 ( talk ) 04:29, 6 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] As for the Audio Verse Awards, that is a pay-to-play scheme that requires nominees to pay the award organizers in order to be considered.  That kind of scheme undermines the credibility of all such awards.  The Screenrant source is a classic example of a passing mention.  It is a single sentence.  Cullen328 ( talk ) 04:47, 6 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Many legitimate awards require an entry fee, including the Emmy Award, Grammy Award, and the Pulitzer Prize.  5Q5 | ✉ 12:06, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Wouldn't a publication for the Wildean Society should count as a reliable source independent of the topic?  Richard Nevell ( talk ) 19:53, 9 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The arguments for deletion are inconsistent with other examples across Wikipedia.  For example The White Vault has 41 references the majority include IMDB, online blogs of similar repute, the podcast's own webpage, Audio Verse Awards, the podcast's own Patreon etc. I agree with Wikipedia that The White Vault is a notable podcast but fail to see why Shadows at the Door is any different when it ticks all the same boxes.  The requirements listed by Cullen328 would exclude many audio drama podcast pages that exist on wikipedia.
 - In response to previous arguments: Listing actors and writers who are part of the production is factual declaration of cast and crew.  Name dropping is defined as mentioning famous people one knows in order to impress -- by definition these are different.
 - Furthermore, the comment about the Audio Verse Awards undermining all other awards is an opinion being presented as fact.  While this is certainly an opinion that can be debated and discussed, it is improper to treat it as a fact here.
 To summarise, the notability concerns have been addressed, particularly the distribution by notable broadcaster Realm Media, sources of notability have been added such as the appearance at Luxcon in Luxembourg, multiple nominations in the Audio verse Awards and all of the above much like other podcast pages such as the aforementioned White Vault, Wolf 359 , Dark Dice The Call of the Void The Magnus Archives (of which dozens of their citations are simply links to Acast).  Like another user has stated, the PODCAST pages mentions all these as things that might indicate notability and I would argue that meeting many of these requirements does indeed do so.
 I'm concerned at the particular scrutiny this page is receiving in respect to the standards met in similar podcasts.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by AchtungWiki!  ( talk • contribs ) 22:11, 8 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ AchtungWiki!  : the sourcing for The White Vault is terrible, feel free to nominate it for deletion as well.  Granted I'm pretty sure better sources exist for that show.  For now I'll add some maintenance tags and take a closer look later.  The argument that other pages of similar quality exist is an example of WP:OTHERSTUFF .  To keep the article you will need to provide reliable sources that are independent of the subject and contain more than a trivial mention about the subject.  Most editors expect at least three sources .  See WP:RSP for a list of sources and the Wikipedia community's consensus on their reliability.  TipsyElephant ( talk ) 23:31, 8 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Your response only strengthens my concerns that this appears to be an oddly targeted campaign.  You speculate that better sources exist for THE WHITE VAULT which implies you feel that show is notable based on your perception of it, which further implies that your perception of SHADOWS AT THE DOOR is at play (and that's with benefit of the doubt).  And while my comments can be perceived purely as an example of OTHERSTUFF, I raise them out of concern as to how much time and diligence has been put into submitting this page for deletion while you are seemingly not policing the many other pages that have set a valid precedent.  Furthermore, you only addressed one of my points raised and ignored the others which still stand as to why this podcast is notable.  Three + sources do exist, myself and another user have argued that they fit the multiple criteria and cited in WP:NPODCAST.  AchtungWiki!  ( talk ) 01:14, 9 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Please assume good faith .  It's not uncommon for editors to feel that an AfD is targetting a subject they care about.  You can check my AfD stats and see that I've nominated dozens of podcast articles going back to February 2021.  In regard to name dropping, notability is not WP:INHERITED by people associated with the subject.  And the sources that have been provided are either unreliable or trivial.  TipsyElephant ( talk ) 12:13, 9 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:05, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  There's a distinct lack of independent sources to establish notability.  The majority of sources are IMDB links, blog posts, or primary sources.  Cortador ( talk ) 21:18, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Sandstein 13:23, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : This is about the only mention in a RS I find [22] .  Rest used in the article are non-RS or listings where you can find this podcast.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 16:14, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] A Scholar of No Importance (2022).  "Pleasing Terrors: A Review of Shadows at the Door's The Picture of Dorian Gray Podcast".  Intentions .  122 .  The Oscar Wilde Society: 11–13.  ISSN 1742-3368 .  is a reliable source, and I suggest that Sullivan, J. A. (27 November 2020).  "{Scary's Voices} Sound Bites: This weeks recommended horror podcasts. (Week Ending 27th November 2020)" .  Kendall Reviews .  Retrieved 2022-11-10 .  is too in this context.  Richard Nevell ( talk ) 13:35, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Oaktree b : it looks like that source discusses a podcast about law with a similar name called The Shadow Docket .  @ Richard Nevell : Kendall Reviews is a self-described WP:BLOG , and I don't see anything indicating that Gavin Kendall or J. A. Sullivan have any training in journalism or writing.  TipsyElephant ( talk ) 15:20, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Still a ! delete from me Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:46, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Confirms to podcast notability an individual podcast is likely to be notable if it has been produced or distributed by a notable broadcaster , in this case Shadows at the Door is distributed by [ Media|Realm ].  In addition to this, a reliable source that seems to be agreed upon by contributors to this discussion is the Oscar Wilde society: A Scholar of No Importance (2022).  "Pleasing Terrors: A Review of Shadows at the Door's The Picture of Dorian Gray Podcast".  Intentions .  122 .  The Oscar Wilde Society: 11–13.  ISSN 1742-3368 .  .  The notability essay also states Podcasts are also more likely to be notable if they have won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization  Ideally, this award itself is also notable and already has a Wikipedia article.  Being nominated for such an award in multiple years may also be considered an indicator of notability.  While the Audio Verse awards notability is itself up for debate, the essay do not insist upon this.  And finally I cite the last note in the essay It's also more likely that a podcast is notable if it has reached a high position on a notable podcasting chart that updates at least weekly .  Shadows at the Door is regularly in the top 200 podcasts for Drama and Fiction on Chartable for Apple Podcasts internationally (especially USA, UK, Canada, Sweden and Norway), at the time of writing this note, the podcast is ranked 158 for drama in the United Sates and in rank history you can see this is a regular occurrence -- you can also note the show has ranked as highly as 6 for Drama in the Untied States.  AchtungWiki!  ( talk ) 01:39, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: to closing admin.  The above is a duplicate keep vote by one of the participating editors.  5Q5 | ✉ 12:38, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Duplicate ! vote struck.  Daniel ( talk ) 21:02, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak delete : There is not enough independent sourcing at present to establish notability imo.  There are many TV series and radio shows that don't qualify for the same reason and have had articles deleted.  The way professional productions gain notability is to hire a publicist or have one in-house.  Wikipedia's purpose is not to serve that role.  My advice is to save the content and republish the article when reference sufficiency has been obtained.  Instructions for how to do this are at WP:RADP .  5Q5 | ✉ 12:38, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per Cullen328 and Oaktree b, this fails GNG as the sources are not independent and reliable.  Daniel ( talk ) 21:03, 26 January 2024 (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.

Discussion outcome: delete