Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Rialto Report

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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:52, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Rialto Report

[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)

Non-notable podcast, sourced to interviews (i.e. primary sources) at blogs (i.e. not reliable sources), so the citations are double-unusable. Note in the interests of full disclosure that I chopped approx 50k from the article before nominating, per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. A single-purpose account Bayview71 is the article creator and pretty much the only contributor since its 2015 creation, coming back to add entry after entry after entry. Would not be a bit surprised if this is an undisclosed paid editor situation. Zaathras (talk) 00:41, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - @TipsyElephant and Zaathras: (and others) - Thank you *very much* for your comments - and suggestions - as stated in my edit summary, the article seems sufficiently notable as presented - nonetheless - a casual Google News Search includes relevant news articles appearing in The New York Times (ref); Los Angeles Times (ref); PBS News (ref); CNN News (ref); The Guardian (ref);The Atlantic (ref); Vanity Fair (ref) - and more - further - a casual Google Search for "The Rialto Report" curently notes "29,000 results" (8pm/est/usa, 06/23/2021) - a substantial internet presence I would think - and includes major internet websites, such as the following: Apple PodCasts; Spotify; YouTube; WikiData - and a great number of other relevant results as well - adding greatly to the notability of "The Rialto Report" article I would think - there may be some room for improvement with the article of course - but seems sufficiently notable, in itself, for "KEEPING" the article - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Comments Welcome from other editors - and - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 01:06, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All you're doing here is a WP:GHITS argument, e.g. the CNN link that contains the line Journalist Lili Anolik and "The Rialto Report" creator Ashley West are behind the series.. That in no way whatsoever supports notability for the podcast, all you did was find a simple Google hit. Linking to their entry pages at itunes, spotify and youtube are also pointless, and not establishers of notability, as they are just directory services. By your criteria, every knucklehead with a Tiktok presence would be article-eligible. And finally, Wikidata? No, all Wikimedia sites are self-published, and this invalid for establishing notability. Zaathras (talk) 02:36, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@TipsyElephant and Zaathras: (and others) - according to the text in the main article, "The Rialto Report" article covers, not only PodCasts, but also other related materials as well, including "Investigative articles" and related materials ("audio, photo and documentary archives") - a worthy (and perhaps unique) collection of historical material - with or without PodCasts I would think - also in this regard, seems "JSTOR" and "Google Scholar" contain relevant results - please understand that I'm flexible re the article depending on WP:CONSENSUS with other editors - the article could use some improvements of course - but nonetheless the article seems worthy and notable imo at the moment - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 13:05, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Drbogdan: can you please provide a link to specific sources that contain more than a trivial mention of the podcast rather than continuing to link to search results? Please provide a source that contains at the very least a short paragraph dedicated to the podcast. If you believe this article meets WP:GNG could you cite (and provide a direct quote) of a wikipedia guideline, rule, policy, or even an essay that supports your belief? TipsyElephant (talk) 14:07, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TipsyElephant: (and others) - Thank you for your comments - and suggestions - very busy with other interests (some real-world) at the moment - and not clear what you may think is particularly relevant - perhaps you can check out the links from the several searches noted above - there seems to be some links (of the many listed) you may find particularly relevant and interesting I would think - as before, Comments Welcome from other editors of course - Thanks again for your own comments - and - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 15:18, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Drbogdan: provide a direct link to a source that dedicates more than a senetence to the subject rather than making us dig around for something that doesn't exist as far as I can tell. TipsyElephant (talk) 15:26, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 24 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) 20:32, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Guardian article is by far the most in depth source that has been discussed above, and one could possibly argue that the source meets the minimum expectations of WP:100WORDS (with a total of 111 words). However, WP:GNG states that more than one source is generally expected and personally I use WP:THREESOURCES as a general rule of thumb. I would be convinced of notability if someone is able to find at least one more source that contains more than 100 words dedicated to the subject. TipsyElephant (talk) 03:05, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of any significant coverage. Sasquatch t|c 02:19, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes the GNG given the significant coverage in the aforementioned Guardian article, plus [1][2][3][4](requires institutional login) Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:03, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Enough sources to write a brief article about it, and it looks like it's a frequent scholarly source too.Citing (talk) 17:52, 14 July 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.