Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Joe Rogan Experience

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. Withdrawing as nominator. Thanks to Alpha3031 and Nosebagbear for reviewing and finding sources with significant coverage. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 19:04, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Joe Rogan Experience[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)

Not sure if this podcast is notable or not. It was nominated for deletion in 2014, with the result of redirect to Joe Rogan. Not sure if it has become more notable since then. Natg 19 (talk) 19:43, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 19:44, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 19:44, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 19:45, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural note I was the closer for the previous AfD. Natg 19 (talk) 19:50, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article needs help, but it's seemingly a permanent top 10 podcast in most rankings of that medium. I'm surprised it doesn't have more to it, honestly; usually we have a whole mess of cruft to deal with, but we have a basic history of the production, not of guests, so a balance is needed there. Nate • (chatter) 23:56, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are there sources that show notability of the podcast itself? The sources in the article are either primary sources or sources that only mention the podcast in passing. Natg 19 (talk) 00:20, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rogan isn't subject to interviews as often since he began the podcast, so it's a little more difficult unless we use snippets from the podcasts themselves. Redban has talked about the history of the podcast on other interviews, which has helped tremendously. I'll take a look at his Rolling Stone feature article and see if anything worthy is in there. LowSelfEstidle (talk) 10:00, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Of course it's become more notable since then, 10 seconds of research or just reading the article as it stands would have revealed that. —Xezbeth (talk) 15:21, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's notable and popular enough. With some additional good sources I think this can be a strong article. LowSelfEstidle (talk) 10:00, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this show gets more listens than many shows on CNN and other networks which have wiki articles. It is heavily cited in writing on the rise of alternative media. I'm sure more citations can be found. Danski14^(talk) 01:27, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. My thoughts articulated perfectly by Xezbeth above at 15:21, 29 July 2018 (UTC).--157.52.16.221 (talk) 00:17, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Justifications - I was just going to give this a NAC close as Keep, but as it stands all the Keep statements are some combination of "there are sources out there", "WP:ILIKEIT and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. It clearly is popular, but actually citing a couple of the best sources seems the logical thing to do. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:46, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's because sources are so plentiful. You don't need someone to post them because they're everywhere. But here's one if you need it.[1] Plus The New York Times states his podcast is the second most popular one after Oprah. —Мандичка^YO 😜 05:38, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As per Nosebagbear's rationale. Would be nice if some of the Keep !votes actually went beyond WP:MUSTBESOURCES and WP:Clearly notable.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:11, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Joe Rogan podcast is the most popular podcast in the world. This page needs help, not deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.7.91.190 (talk) 18:48, 3 August 2018‎ (UTC)[reply]

And alas, another ILIKEIT !vote Nosebagbear (talk) 14:12, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Fix, not delete. Ottoshade (talk) 07:59, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't know much about the podcast or man but even I have heard of it. This is not a ILIKEIT !vote. Google search shows extensive coverage. —Мандичка^YO 😜 05:31, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Rogan may be a bit of an annoying jerk, but he's a notable annoying jerk. Simonm223 (talk) 18:42, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Details, again - again, !votes can't just declare someone is notable they should say why. Likewise, if you're going to say a google search shows extensive coverage (which is certainly possible) it has more worth as a point if you can link to a couple of actually functional sources. These are supposed to be !votes, not votes
Comment 9500 news mentions would certainly imply notability. His podcast is frequently reported on both in MMA press and mainstream press as a significant platform. And while I'm sympathetic to WP:ILIKEIT and WP:MUSTBESOURCES not being sufficient on their own, there's also no particularly strong rationale presented for deletion beyond WP:JDL and a pretty clear consensus that nobody monitoring AFD wants this page deleted. Simonm223 (talk) 13:00, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close with no prejudice against speedy renomination. While the keep !votes more or less fall into WP:ILIKEIT, WP:Clearly notable and WP:GOOGLEHITS, "not sure of notability" isn't really a rationale for deletion. It appears to me that most of the sources are passing mentions: The Washington Examiner article is mostly about Joe Rogan the person, and not the podcast; and the New York Times article mentioned appears to have cumulative mentions of no more than a few sentences in the whole thing. I suppose someone could perform 10 seconds of research and return with the results, but they could equally add citations or renominate in the case of a procedural close. — Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:23, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Additional sources may be provided, and the Washington Examiner article may be further evaluated.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, wumbolo ^^^ 12:01, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: After a bit of trawling, I've found this National Review article, which seems to be a mostly significant mention of the podcast (and its style) and not of the guests appearing or the man. I'll be going through the remaining 9 pages of Google results later to determine if there are any better sources. Comments welcome. — Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:30, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good source, and I was hoping it could add to one of the very few stated above to finally let this be resolved. Alas the NY one doesn't come close to satisfying Sig Cov, and I can't judge Washington Examiner properly (I can't tell whether it counts as an Op Ed piece) because it has a habit of crashing my computer, which makes it unhelpful for me. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:26, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep being the #3 rated podcast [2] is a sufficient claim of notability. This Rolling Stone article discusses the podcast in detail, as well as Rogan himself. I'm not sure why this is still open. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:58, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with the Rolling Stone article and the this National Review, there is finally sufficient sourcing (that doesn't crash my computer) actually stated to give a clear keep under WP:WEB, which seems most appropriate for podcasts. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:37, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think with the incidental coverage re. Conor McGregor, this Indianapolis Monthly article, plus the Washington Examiner, Rolling Stone and National Review articles, notability has finally been reasonably established. Now to ping Natg 19 for a possible early close. I also propose we trout all the WP:MUSTBESOURCES !voters. — Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:28, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully each trout can be used more than once... Nosebagbear (talk)

Keep The article and sourcing is better since its 2014 deletion nomination, it's one of the more notable podcasts as stated above and just because it's a podcast doesn't mean it can't have its own article (if any sports podcasts deserves an article its this one). JC7V-constructive zone 20:02, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable. One of the most popular podcasts today. Finnishela (talk) 16:22, 13 August 2018 (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.