Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gillmor Gang
- 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 delete. BD2412 T 04:23, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
Gillmor Gang[edit]
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Gillmor Gang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The article does not meet WP:GNG. I searched for quite a while on Google News and couldn't find any sources that were reliable secondary sources of information. The podcast appears to have been produced by TechCrunch and Steve Gillmor wrote articles for TechCrunch that have been republished by YahooNews under different domain names. After excluding any search results from TechCrunch and Yahoo news there are some very questionable sites that have published the podcast's newletter, which I believe would still be considered a primary source. Aside from that there are a few other mentions of the words "gillmor" and "gang" in some articles, but they refer to other things. TipsyElephant (talk) 17:20, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 17:20, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 17:20, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 17:20, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. Doesn't meet general notability guidelines. Rondolinda (talk) 19:36, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
- Keep - The nominator's actions puzzle me. There was a WP:PROD message put on the article, and I improved it on the same day with updated information and removed the template as was prescribed by the guidelines - "You may remove this message if you improve the article or otherwise object to deletion for any reason." And yet here we are on the AfD. The podcast had its heyday and influence and was one of the first podcasts in this space when it started in May 2004, being a firm part of Internet history if you look at the guests and presence. You cannot (and should not) simply go by Google News or we are in big trouble all around. -- Fuzheado | Talk 10:39, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
- Hello Fuzheado, can you please provide independent and reliable secondary sources that demonstrate the notability of this podcast? Right now the article's references are almost exclusively from sources with direct connections to the podcast itself so I don't believe they meet the requirements of being independent. Many of the sources are directly from the podcast and it's hosts which makes them primary sources. As far as I'm aware having notable guests on a podcast does not make the podcast notable. Similarly, it doesn't even matter if the hosts are notable. I was going by Google News because there aren't many print sources on podcasts, but based on a quick Google Books search there only appears to be trivial mentions in couple sources. I would be very suprised if there are any physical newspapers that mention the podcast but if someone has a newspapers.com membership they could check for you. Perhaps I opened a AfD process sooner than was appropriate, but I don't think demonstrating WP:GNG for this subject is possible TipsyElephant (talk) 19:52, 22 June 2021 (UTC
- TipsyElephant, I can confirm that "Gillmor Gang" does not turn up any hits on newspapers.com. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 03:57, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
- Hello Fuzheado, can you please provide independent and reliable secondary sources that demonstrate the notability of this podcast? Right now the article's references are almost exclusively from sources with direct connections to the podcast itself so I don't believe they meet the requirements of being independent. Many of the sources are directly from the podcast and it's hosts which makes them primary sources. As far as I'm aware having notable guests on a podcast does not make the podcast notable. Similarly, it doesn't even matter if the hosts are notable. I was going by Google News because there aren't many print sources on podcasts, but based on a quick Google Books search there only appears to be trivial mentions in couple sources. I would be very suprised if there are any physical newspapers that mention the podcast but if someone has a newspapers.com membership they could check for you. Perhaps I opened a AfD process sooner than was appropriate, but I don't think demonstrating WP:GNG for this subject is possible TipsyElephant (talk) 19:52, 22 June 2021 (UTC
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 23:44, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 23:44, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:17, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:17, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete: Barely found anything about the podcast. Search results return books containing passing mentions of it. ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 05:35, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Sources on page do not pass WP:RS. Probably a bit too soon. Sasquatch t|c 02:12, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
- 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.