Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frenemies (podcast)

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 redirect to H3h3Productions#The H3 Podcast and spin-offs. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:24, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Frenemies (podcast)[edit]

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

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

Coverage mostly by tabloid media, see WP:RECENT, WP:NOTNP. News articles mentioning the podcast focus on statements made by the people on the podcast rather than the podcast itself. Coverage of the article's subject is thereby trivial. Reliability of Insider (which the article solely relies on currently) is not conclusive. Throast (talk) 21:45, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Throast (talk) 21:52, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Throast (talk) 21:52, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as creator: I have added some extra sources outside of Insider, though I will admit that the podcast's mention in these sources is fleeting. --Bangalamania (talk) 22:44, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:46, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems to pass GNG Lirazelf (talk) 18:19, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep definitely meets WP:NOTABILITY standards. There is a lot of mainstream coverage on this (NYT, eg) that will be added to the sources with more information. 2600:1006:B0D8:9D61:A075:BB46:8852:1420 (talk) 22:20, 10 June 2021 (UTC)— 2600:1006:B0D8:9D61:A075:BB46:8852:1420 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Would you be so kind to list a few mainstream sources outside of Insider, PopBuzz, Mashable, Dexerto, and other tabloid websites whose reliability is questionable? I can't find a New York Times article discussing the subject. Many of the sources I find discuss statements made by the people on the podcast, rather than the podcast itself as a subject. Coverage has to be significant per WP:GNG. Trivial mentions don't suffice to establish notability. Throast (talk) 23:42, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean they they discuss the statements on the podcast rather than the podcast itself. The NYT article I was referring to about the podcast itself forthcoming from Taylor Lorenz. That said, I think PantheonRadiance‘s suggestion of a merge may be more apt. 2601:6C0:C102:DD40:D8B:2F0D:4CA4:66DD (talk) 11:01, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You should change your vote from "Keep" to "Merge" then. Throast (talk) 11:27, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I don't understand what is it with Wikipedia users constantly resorting to deleting YouTube articles on first instinct. Seeing as how most of the sources seem trivial and consist of "statements made by the people on the podcast," wouldn't it be more reasonable to add the Frenemies information and sources from this article to both Ethan and/or Trisha's pages instead? That way such information can be preserved and accessible while also contributing to both of their notability statuses, and the article wouldn't completely go to waste. There could simply be a section dedicated to the Frenemies podcast seeing as how the coverage isn't nearly in-depth enough to justify a full article by itself, but reflects a part of the history of both Ethan and Trisha's careers. PantheonRadiance (talk) 05:35, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why I've nominated this article for deletion is because its notability as a standalone subject is questionable. A subject that's not notable should not have its own separate article, therefor it should be deleted. That doesn't rule out merging its contents with other articles. As you can see at Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Recommendations and outcomes, "Merge" is a perfectly valid argument to make in a deletion discussion. Throast (talk) 09:05, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, my apologies for the brashness; I was in a bit of a dour mood yesterday when I wrote this. But I still think that for now, maybe merging the article to either Ethan or Trisha's pages would be the best course of action. If any new information arises from reliable sources, perhaps we could recreate the article at a later date (although it may seem unlikely seeing that the podcast has reportedly ended).PantheonRadiance (talk) 17:28, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to h3h3Productions#The H3 Podcast and spin-offs: I don't know if there's anything to merge, but it's already discussed in a segment of the target article. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that. And move info pertaining to the two hosts to their respective articles. Throast (talk) 17:31, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirecting also seems reasonable; I originally suggested Merge because I figured the podcast's mention on their respective articles was quite terse. PantheonRadiance (talk) 20:31, 15 June 2021 (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.