Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Mediocre Show

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. Daniel (talk) 00:35, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

The Mediocre Show

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

The Mediocre Show (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. The article appears to have been WP:PROD on two separate occasions for not meeting WP:WEBCRIT and the tag was removed with the justification that the podcast is distributed by iTunes or perhaps that it has been distributed to a lot of listeners on iTunes, which at best is an example of WP:ITEXISTS or WP:ARBITRARY. The SLUG magazine article is barely less than a trivial mention and I can't tell how WP:RELIABLE the source is. The City Weekly source is a self-described WP:BLOG written by the same author as the SLUG magazine article. Both the City Weekly and the Maxim Online image of a book are WP:INTERVIEWS and therefore primary sources. The Podcast Alley link appears to be to a forum discussion, which is unreliable and user generated. The Johnny Brick House source is another blog. The PRLog article appears to have been published by the Network that hosts the show and is therefore not independent, but even if it was it's in an interview format so it's not a secondary source. The Philadelphia Weekly source is probably the best source available except it's still rather short and it's reliability has been questioned at least once in WP:RSN (I'm not exactly sure how RSN works so for all I know it's still considered reliable). A significant number of the edits appear to have been made by someone with the user name "Erictomorrow" as well as quite a few random IP addresses so I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that there has been some WP:COI in the editing process of the page. I can't find any good sources online, but perhaps there are more print sources I'm unaware of. TipsyElephant (talk) 17:51, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 17:51, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 17:51, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 17:51, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 17:51, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

•  Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd.

Logs: 2010-08 ↻ restored, 2010-08 ✗ PROD

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:10, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:50, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

• Delete. Article exists only for self promotion of a non-notable show. Paragon Deku (talk) 06:05, 24 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.