Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bantams Banter


 * 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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:17, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Bantams Banter
AfDs for this article: 


 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The SPI into the last afd was closed recently resulting in almost half the participants, including all but two of those arguing that the article should be kept, being blocked for sockpuppetry. Following a brief discussion with the closing admin of the last afd, I am renominating this so that we can a clean result. The underlying notability concerns do not appear to have been addressed in the interim. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:55, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:57, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 17 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - no material change to level of sources provided to support GNG, my opinion from the earlier discussion still stands. To deal with the sources explicitly (copying from the previous discussion where relevant:
 * - This is a local newspaper report. As such I think this carries a lot less weight than a national paper.
 * - This is blog interview. I don't see anything to indicate it is a suitable source for notability, particularly given that it is a blog specifically about Bradford City as noted here so its not really notable that a fan blog would have an interview with another couple of fans who run a podcast.
 * - This is an in depth interview, but again is a blog post. I'm not sure the extent to which this a reliable source again as it appears that it is a blog that focuses an awful lot of Bradford City (as is obvious when you look at the blog's front page), so again, unsurprising that it would feature interviews with other people who are fans of Bradford City.
 * - This I would class as a primary source as it is Bradford City FC reporting on the existence of a podcast specifically set up by fans of the club, with this article on a charity drive specifically linked to the football club itself and its charity endeavours.
 * - This isn't about the podcast at all, but about the first MoTD from Salford. The podcast and its hosts are mentioned in two sentences. This is not significant coverage, and was conceded as such in the original discussion.
 * - This, although it appears on the BBC website, is actually coverage from its regional Look North programme. Additionally, as a very short piece running to less than two minutes, I do not think that this amounts to significant coverage of the podcast or its hosts.
 * - This is a 3.5 minute bit on football focus. One appearance on national television like this does not confer notability. The reason they are on football focus is because of Bradford City's cup run, not because of anything the podcast itself has achieved.
 * - This is a podcast with Alan Davies. One ITV podcast (which I doubt would have happened without the association with a much more notable individual) is not sufficient national media exposure to satisfy GNG. It may be linked to Bantam's Banter but the source specifically refers to it as "Alan Davies Brazilian Banter". It seems clear to me that this is an Alan Davies vehicle based on Bantams Banter, not the podcast in question under a different guise. Notability is not inherited.
 * - This could be used to support GNG with other sources, but is not particularly long in itself. Again, per source 7, the reason for this interview, as noted in the intro to it which says Bradford City war die Sensation der Pokalsaison, is because of Bradford's cup run, not because of anything significant done by the podcast or its hosts.
 * - The final source, A History of Bradford City AFC in Objects, is also not what I would term a reliable source for notability purposes. I do not wish to slight the publication by claiming that Bantamspast Publishing is a vanity press, but it seems pretty clear that this is a book published by an outlet with a specific interest in publishing works on Bradford City and does not suggest quality, reliablility or neutrality.
 * Finally, a comment was made in the initial discussion that the podcast was notable per WP:WEBCRIT as it had won an award. I do not see anything to support the notion that the Football Blogging Awards can be described objectively as a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization, they have been held three times. Perhaps in time this will become a notable and established awards ceremony, but at the moment I don't think it is. Fenix down (talk) 08:56, 17 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Relegate this ... er, Delete: Thanks for Fenix for the analysis, which means the rest of us don't have to haul as much freight. This podcast needs to pass the GNG, and that's just not there: not multiple, reliable sources that are independent of the subject and which discuss the subject in significant detail. There, that clear enough for any SPAs likely to barge in?  I'm seeing sources that don't actually talk about the subject, and ones off of the team website, and casual mentions, and mentions of the podcasters as opposed to the subject, and blogposts, and allegations from a book from this "Bantamspast Publishing" (for which I couldn't find ANY information, even off of the UK Google).  Rather much for supporters of a third-tier soccer team.  Nha Trang  Allons! 15:19, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete As per noted and expansive failure to meet WP:GNG; thanks again to Fenix. Fortuna  Imperatrix Mundi  15:53, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - The amount of keep votes interested and almost causes a seizure so I thought I'd comment. My searches found nothing aside from some of the current links or related but no solid significant and independent coverage to suggest notability. SwisterTwister   talk  22:48, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per Fenix's analysis of the sources. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  14:43, 21 June 2015 (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.