Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Dawn and Drew Show (3rd nomination)

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 keep. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:23, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Dawn and Drew Show

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

Non-notable podcast. NPR is a listing, and who knows what's mentioned in Time. Google reveals no RSes. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:00, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Failure to meet WP:WEB. --Erick Shepherd (talk) 10:20, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: I rescind my previous statement per the arguments of Dontreader and Shawn in Montreal: I believe they have conclusively established the notability of the subject. --Erick Shepherd (talk) 21:10, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:05, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:06, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep and Close: This has been a Strong Keep twice now, with only one delete !vote in the previous two AfDs. I see no reason for a third AfD. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:13, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there's been enough time to allow another AfD and this is common at AfD, but I will also have to say Delete for this as this would need better improvements and my searches haven't found anything convincingly better. SwisterTwister talk 04:15, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - In all fairness to Walter Görlitz A) The previous AFDs wasn't made by WG, and B) The first and second AFDs were in 2005 and 2007 respectively and since then AFD here has become alot more stricter etc so those shouldn't be taken so seriously as such, Anyway I can't find any evidence of notability so will have to say Delete. –Davey2010^Talk 21:01, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per below - Sources aren't amazing but notability's certainly there.... –Davey2010^Talk 14:49, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think perhaps it does meet WP:CORPDEPTH. The depth of coverage is not impressive, from what I can see, but I was impressed by the Columbia Journalism Review calling it one of the "more established podcasts", being cited by the NYT arts critic Virginia Heffernan so prominently, with the BBC citing the show as a key example on the business side of podcasting, etc. Again, not in-depth but widely cited. Keep, for me. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:09, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vipinhari || talk 05:14, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article needs serious improvements, such as the lead section, and a decent references section, but despite what the nominator claims, Google does reveal reliable sources, which he or she missed. For example, Advertising Age has a lengthy article dedicated entirely to the show here. Also, a book entitled Podcasting Bible, whose authors seem to be independent of the show, covers the topic significantly on more than one page (scroll from here). There's even a For Dummies book whose foreword was written by the show hosts, here. Other books mention the show to some degree or another when searching for it using Google Books. Shawn in Montreal made some very good points as well. I think there's enough now to reach a keep consensus. Dontreader (talk) 08:48, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete As non-notable podcast. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 18:44, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as reliable sources have been found by Shaun in montreal and Dontreader such as Advertising Age, book Podcasting Bible, NYTimes,BBC etc., so that WP:GNG is met. Atlantic306 (talk) 22:12, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- GNG states that significant coverage. They're mostly just mentions. 14:40, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
  - Walter Görlitz, you want more "significant coverage" to pass GNG? What about this article in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel? Scroll to the left, to page 1A, to read the rest of the article. Or what about this article in the Park City Daily News, which begins with their story? What if we add the small coverage in this book? [1]? And in this book? [2]. It all adds up to significant coverage. Per WP:GNG, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it need not be the main topic of the source material." You want more? [3] and [4]. Plus the sources that have already been mentioned. You should have found these "new" sources yourself. I simply used the gadgets that are right here on the AfD page for finding sources, which are the same ones you are supposed to use before nominating an article for deletion. Read WP:BEFORE. You ignored section D. Dontreader (talk) 20:49, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - You know, when you accuse someone of doing or not doing something, it's a problem. I did BEFORE and found nothing because there was nothing. The sources you provided here are not substantial, but weight is starting to be met. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:54, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - If you think it was uncivil of me to say that you ignored section D of WP:BEFORE then I apologize for putting it that way. Maybe I should have said that you apparently forgot about section D instead. You claim you performed those searches and found nothing. Very well, I believe you. But then which words did you use for your search? All you had to do was search for "The Dawn and Drew Show" (with and without quotation marks). A Google Books search shows plenty of results, most of which I have cited already. A Google News archive search shows at the top of the list the two results that I provided. Any Wikipedian can confirm that what I'm saying is true. A Google News search shows a passing mention even in The Sydney Morning Herald [5], a passing mention in the Columbia Journalism Review (which another contributor already cited) [6], information that constitutes more than a passing mention in The New York Times (cited by the same editor) [7], passing mentions in Macworld [8], the San Francisco Chronicle [9], ABC News [10], BBC News [11] (already provided by another contributor), and more than a passing mention on PR Web which confirms that the show was on Sirius Satellite Radio [12]. So I do wonder which search words you used since you stated that you "did BEFORE and found nothing because there was nothing." Even if we forget about the passing mentions (although you should wonder why such prestigious sources would even mention a non-notable show), the article will be kept. 100% guaranteed. Finally, as a special gift for you, here's an archived version of an article in USA Today that covers the show at the beginning, and heavily towards the end [13]. Dontreader (talk) 07:47, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        I did that, with the quotes, and did not hit either google books. However when editors who link directly to articles rather than breaking back links and who don't know how to correctly indent comments in discussions such as this start telling eitors how to do BEFORE, the world is a sorry place. I still think the article should be deleted because the coverage is not sufficient. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:11, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        The world is a sorry place when some experienced Wikipedians let their ego get in the way, impairing their judgment. Who the hell cares about breaking back links or correctly indenting comments in these sorts of discussions? My style is clear enough. You are totally incompetent at searching for sources. That's what matters. If all Wikipedians were as useless as you at finding sources then Wikipedia would have zero articles. There would be no Wikipedia. Look, two voters changed their votes to Keep partially based on my input because they care more about the integrity of Wikipedia than about their egos. One of the two people that still believe the article should be deleted became a Wikipedian three days before he voted, and he made this edit to an article. You are in good company. Incidentally, there's actually a higher chance of woodchucks being from Pluto than this article getting deleted. Deal with it, and carry on with your big ego, my dear. Dontreader (talk) 19:08, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        
        @Walter Görlitz: What do you mean by breaking backlinks? Rebb ing 20:14, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        If you link directly to an article like this [[User:Walter Görlitz]], and you select "What links here" on that article, this article will be shown to be linked to that article. If you link to an article like this [[:User:Walter Görlitz]], with the colon, this article will not appear when you select "What links here". While I agree that two editors changed their votes,, I have no problems with that. Personal attacks are another matter. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:13, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        Thank you; I did not know that! When is it considered good form to use a non-backlinked link? (I looked at Help:Link § Wikilinks, mw:Links § Internal links, and MOS:LINK but found nothing on this point.) Rebb ing 04:30, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        Generally on talk pages. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:54, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The topic passes WP:GNG and WP:WEBCRIT. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:32, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

Park City Daily News
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
Advertising Age
Podcasting Bible (subscription required)
Voice: Vocal Aesthetics in Digital Arts and Media. pp. 39–41.
USA Today
The New York Times (4 paragraphs)

Keep per Dontreader: it may be close, but I believe the subject falls on the fair side of the line. However, I have nothing against the nomination. Rebb ing 23:13, 15 April 2016 (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.