Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stuck in the 80s

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 no consensus. Sandstein 08:24, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stuck in the 80s[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)

NN blog/podcast, fails the GNG and WP:WEBCRIT. No significant coverage in reliable sources found, and the article is completely unsourced. No evidence that the awards claimed were actually awarded. Very promotional in tone. Definite COI issues: most of the edits to the article have been by a string of SPAs for whom working on this article is their sole Wikipedia activity, one with the same name as this podcast's host.

Prod was removed with the edit summary "My before shows this is notable...however it needs refs. I will put it on watch and start later." My before shows that it is not notable; if one actually looks at the hits, the great majority are social media, YouTube links, and generic use of "stuck in the 80s" as a turn of phrase in articles having nothing to do with this blog/podcast. The signal exception is coverage in the Tampa Bay Times, which is extensive ... as well as it may be, since the creator of the blog/cast was a writer FOR the Tampa Bay Times, and the numerous hits are his own mentions of his own podcast. Given the Times's extensive connection with this podcast, none of the coverage in that paper, online or otherwise, qualifies as an independent source.

As far as the deprodder's intent to "put it on watch and start later" goes, sorry, but it's been eleven years. I will be happy to withdraw this nom if the deprodder can produce significant coverage in reliable, third-party, independent sources now, but enough is enough. Ravenswing 01:15, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Ravenswing 01:15, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:25, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am the de-prodder because we have a notable subject. Not all podcasts are notable, but this one is. I have been editing all day so I needed to stop a minute. WP:NORUSH. This is a 15 year old Podcast Here is partial interview with Def Leopard's lead singer Joe Elliott, a reference from Hollywood in Toto, A reference from the Tampa Bay Times article by Kevin Wuench, an article in the Twin Cities Pioneer Press called 50 Podcasts to stream, an article in the Washington Times. Given time I could possibly find more, and admittedly...some of these are passing mentions. Hoever the subject passes WP:GNG and given time perhaps Steve Spears would pass WP:ENT. Lightburst (talk) 02:08, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Fair enough, let's examine those sources. The first one is not about the subject: it's a brief excerpt of the podcast interviewing someone else = does not support the notability of the subject. The second is a press release = does not support the notability of subject. The third is a piece eliciting the views of thirty readers of the newspaper as to their favorite podcasts, one of which mentions the subject in a single paragraph = casual mention, does not support the notability of the subject. The fourth quotes Spears, among others, but only namedrops his podcast, and the podcast is not otherwise mentioned = does not support the notability of the subject.
I'm afraid that the bottom line is not WP:ITSIMPORTANT. It's whether there are reliable sources providing significant coverage to the subject. That this podcast has been around a while is not relevant; the potential notability of the podcast's creator is not relevant. If those are the best cites you can find, the answer is clear: this subject is not notable. Ravenswing 02:53, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,

Salvio

17:33, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: With reliable sources indicated by Lightburst, the article is good enough to pass WP:GNG. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 08:11, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:14, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per Ravenswing, none of the coverage above is significant independent coverage. There is a new article in the Orlando Sentinel from Aug 3 which is more substantial than the sources above (Florida-produced podcast about the ’80s marks 15 years - archive) but, agreeing with Ravenswing's assessment of the sources above, a single new source isn't enough to bring it past the GNG. -M.Nelson (talk) 09:04, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep There's this recent article in the Tampa Bay Times that seems to be substantial as well. I believe it's a good start for this article to pass WP:GNG. --Deansfa (talk) 20:49, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My assertion, which I give in the nomination, is that the coverage this podcast has received in the Tampa Bay Times is all disqualified as a non-independent source, as the creator of the podcast was a writer for the Times, and hawked the podcast a number of times under his byline. (This quite aside from that this is the same piece word-for-word as the one M.Nelson cites. Ravenswing 06:52, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Spears left the Tampa Bay Times 8 years ago. We can't eternally accuse this newspaper to be biased because he was, at some point in his career, an editor there. I agree with you that old Tampa Bay Times' articles may be disqualified, but this specific one (written by someone not related to this podcast) is IMO independent of the subject. And I don't see where is the word-to-word similarity. They definitely cover the same topic, but that's all. --Deansfa (talk) 16:11, 15 August 2020 (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.