Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intercepted with Jeremy Scahill


 * 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 merge to The Intercept. Merge any useful content, then redirect. (non-admin closure) f  e  minist  10:36, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Intercepted with Jeremy Scahill

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A four-month-old political podcast. Article reads like advertising, which is fitting because that's where much of what passes for sourcing is from its production company, along with some passing mentions. Calton | Talk 04:28, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   04:42, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

The producers and contributors to this political podcast are Notable. If it is objectionable for it to have a standalone article, perhaps it should be merged with the existing article The Intercept since they are related? Milhouse-the-mighty (talk) 05:25, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi - notability is WP:NOTINHERITED by the notability of the show's producers and contributors, so you need to be able to show where it's independently notable outside of Scahill. This can sometimes be difficult to show for news programs and podcasts, as it's not always common for news programs to cover other news programs and podcasts do sometimes tend to be overlooked. That it was very recently launched can make this difficult as well. I think that your idea of a merge is a good idea for the time being, since you could merge the general information into the main article for The Intercept and then redirect IwJS to the main article. This would leave the article's history intact so that if/when the show gains more coverage it can be restored back into an article. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 02:18, 23 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep It seems we have a WikiProject podcasting, and this is notable for inclusion as part of that project. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 05:28, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * "Being claimed by a Wikiproject" =/= "notable", "encyclopedic", or "supported by reliable sources". In fact, in terms of a deletion discussion, it means, literally, nothing. --Calton | Talk 02:45, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The existence of a WikiProject for a particular domain does not, in and of itself, constitute an automatic inclusion freebie for every possible topic that might happen to fall under the project's purview — a potential article topic still has to be reliably sourceable as passing a specific notability criterion. Bearcat (talk) 06:08, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:26, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:26, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:26, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Redirect to The Intercept. This has nowhere close to enough reliable source coverage in its own right to stand alone as a separate article topic — but its parent publication does, so there's no reason for it not to be at least mentioned there. Bearcat (talk) 06:12, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   11:06, 30 April 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   14:19, 7 May 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   20:38, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Redirect or Merge with The Intercept. There are simply not enough sources to demonstrate that the podcast, on its own, meets notability criteria. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:50, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge per above, but it really needs edited down too (the Major Stories section currently mentions stories that Intercepted only had a small role in, mostly cites Intercepted/The Intercept and doesn't cite enough sources to prove they were major stories). The article has a lot of references but most only mention Intercepted in passing, don't mention it at all, or are not independent. The only article which is substantially about The Intercepted is from Mobile Marketer which appears to just about meet the criteria to be a reliable source, despite partly quoting and paraphrasing a press release. The Business Wire story is a press release. The DJ Spooky interview with Vice is an interview so most of it can't be used as a reliable source. Superficially it almost looks notable, but the sources at the moment fall a bit short, both in depth of coverage and in the status of publications (a story in the NY Times carries more weight than one in a niche online publication, and this podcast doesn't seem to have got much mainstream coverage). --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:27, 15 May 2017 (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.