Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/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   redirect to Joe Rogan. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 20:37, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Joe Rogan Experience

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No indication at all given of notability.

But it's been around for a while, so I'll give it a chance at AFD instead of sending it to A7 CSD. TexasAndroid (talk) 22:54, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 01:39, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 01:40, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 09:42, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Joshua Garner (talk) 02:39, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Ranked #5 on Stitcher, outranking other podcasts on Wikipedia that have no question of their significance (such as Stuff You Should Know and The Adam Carolla Show (podcast)): http://www.stitcher.com/stitcher-list/all-podcasts-top-shows
 * Hundreds of interviews with Wikipedia subjects, also with no question of their significance.
 * Over 240,000 YouTube subscribers: https://www.youtube.com/user/PowerfulJRE
 * Unfortunately while popularity can make it more likely that someone will gain coverage, this is not a guarantee and we would still require coverage in reliable sources to show notability. (WP:ITSPOPULAR) There are actually a lot of YouTube and podcast shows/personalities that are very popular but still fail notability guidelines. As far as association with notable persons goes, notability is not inherited (WP:NOTINHERITED). Ultimately notability can only be proven by showing coverage in reliable sources, like newpaper articles and the like. There just isn't any other way to show notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   12:02, 8 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Used as a source and mentioned by multiple professional journalists, sports journalists and otherwise
 * Awarded "Best Overall Show" in 2013 Sticher Awards --Spaycemunkie (talk) 23:11, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately you'd have to show where the award is particularly noteworthy. Most awards aren't considered to be notable enough per Wikipedia's guidelines to give notability on here and I always like to say that less than 5% of the awards given for any reason (Nobel Prizes to Heisman Trophies) would give any sort of notability. In the case of the Stitcher Award, it doesn't appear to be of any particular note as far as Wikipedia goes. It's something I'd put on a page because it'd be interesting, but it's not something that would really show notability. Wikipedia is pretty strict about stuff like that. As far as the other sources go, LFPress is just a routine notification of an event for the most part and the show is only mentioned in passing, making it a WP:TRIVIAL source. The other sources mention the show in passing in relation to someone that was on the show. (Remember, notability is WP:NOTINHERITED by notable persons being on the show!) The articles aren't really about the show itself, which makes them unusable as a source that would really show notability. They're not enough in and of themselves to show notability. We need articles that talk about the show in depth and not just in passing. I'm not trying to be difficult, it's just that these aren't sources that would show notability enough to save the article from deletion. So far it looks like unless there are better sources out there, the best option would be to merge and redirect to Rogan's article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   04:39, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I agree with the way you're interpreting the notability guidelines. None of the exceptions in WP:ORGDEPTH apply to the sources I provided, and I could throw out many more along the same lines (recent example: here). An interview show is composed of the words that are said during the interview. Those words are the content of the show. Also, WP:TRIVIAL either doesn't exist or doesn't apply--maybe you meant something else? It is true that there aren't a bevy of articles from large, reputable publications specifically about the podcast itself, rather than its content. Instead, what is said on the podcast--both by Rogan and his guests--regularly makes news in professional publications. WP:VIEWERSHIP also seems to apply, although it's a vague and contested section. Those things, I think, make the podcast adequately, if not ideally, meet the notability guides. But main gist I think of why people believe the podcast is notable is because it actually is. It has over 500 episodes that each garner hundreds of thousands to millions of unique downloads, at a minimum double the viewership of prime-time CNN. It has generated a massive following--fan pages, forums, popular subreddits, etc. The podcast has actually "made" the careers of many of its guests. You can certainly debate whether the podcast meets the letter of the notability guidelines (I would argue that it does) but you can't argue that it doesn't meet the spirit. This may just be yet another good example of how the notability guidelines are quickly becoming outdated, particularly in their bias for corporate media recognition ("reputable") over social media and grassroots recognition. That's certainly a topic for another venue, but it's nonetheless, in my view, patently true. Spaycemunkie (talk) 07:41, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Are you referring to page views? (WP:PAGEVIEW) I know that there are some mentions in various notability guidelines about fanbases, but those policies require that the fanbase itself have received substantial media coverage in and of themselves. In other words, those policies are written with the assumption that if the fanbase is particularly noteworthy then the show itself would be so notable that finding coverage would be incredibly easy. (Ex, Bronies, Trekkies, and so on.) Just being popular does not guarantee notability and Wikipedia does not consider popularity to be a reason to keep an article or assert notability. (See WP:ITSPOPULAR.) A show being popular makes it more likely that there will be coverage but it is not a guarantee. In any case, a better guideline for overall notability would probably be WP:WEB since it technically falls under the umbrella of "it's online" since it's a podcast. WP:ORG is more associated with businesses and corporations. But in any case, the reason why we cannot use the sources you listed as in-depth sources is because they are not about the show but about the person being interviewed. The podcast is only briefly mentioned in relation to the main subject and there's no true in-depth coverage of the podcast. Basically, the article needs to be about the podcast itself and go into depth. A good example of what is considered to be usable is this article about Welcome to Night Vale. Not only is it in-depth, but it's also in a place that Wikipedia considers to be reliable. It's expected that notable people will be interviewed and it's extremely common for people to mention some of the places they've been interviewed. The problem with interviews is that in the vast majority of cases it's not where the news first dropped but what is being said. Unless the coverage goes into extreme detail about the where, the notability is really given to what is being said. Usually the only time the "where" is really given much attention is when the "where" is particularly controversial or otherwise contentious, like in an instance where the BBC aired an interview with a member of ISIS. The reason for this is because as I said, there are so many name drops for various news and podcast outlets that just being briefly mentioned as interviewing someone doesn't give notability. It's considered to be either trivial or a case of "not inherited". In any case, here's a better rundown of the sources:


 * 1) LF Press. This is a notification for an event where Redban will be performing as a standup comedian, independently of the show. The extent of the show's mention is limited to the sentence "He is producer/co-host of The Joe Rogan Experience podcast that touches on philosophy, psychedelics, sports and comedy" and the article is not about the show or even Redburn's contributions to the show. It's to let people know about upcoming performances.
 * 2) Bleacher Report. This is ultimately about Georges St-Pierre's brush with an alien life form. That he was on the Joe Rogan Experience when he mentioned this is only briefly mentioned in passing to identify where the comments were made. It is considered to be trivial.
 * 3) Yahoo Sports. This is the same story and again, the show is only briefly mentioned and the sole focus of the article is on GSP.
 * 4) Bloody Elbow. This is probably the first source that really mentions the show in any depth, but the main focus is still GSP. The show is just the vehicle through which the interview happened and as it's expected that shows with any followings will have interviews with notable persons.
 * 5) Stitcher Awards. Better, but you have to show that a Stitcher Award is one that would give notability. It's pretty hard to assert notability for any given award on Wikipedia because there are so many awards out there and at some point Wikipedia has to draw the line. The reason I emphasize Wikipedia is because while an award might seem impressive to you or I, at some point Wikipedia has to draw the line for notability purposes. A good rule of thumb is to google the name of the award. If there aren't a lot of news outlets in general reporting on the awards, even if it's just to announce winners, then odds are that Wikipedia would not consider it to be particularly notable. I did search and found less than 10,000 hits for the award, few of them in places that would be considered a RS.
 * 6) Vice Sports. This does mention Rogan and a particular interview in some depth, so it'd probably be usable for a controversy section. However the problem is, this is really the only source you've given so far that is actually in depth. You'd have to show more coverage to show that this particular controversy is notable and that the show has gained additional coverage as a whole.


 * I know that it must seem like I'm trying particularly hard to argue against notability, but it's not like I particularly want the page deleted. Mostly it's just that the sourcing so far is very, very weak and it's the type of sourcing where if by some chance this does survive based on the sources you've provided, it'd be very easily deleted in a followup AfD. This is actually fairly common, as notability standards have grown increasingly more strict over time. The days are long since gone when we could easily show notability by saying that someone or something has a large fanbase. Part of this is because we've had several people try to claim notability by stating numbers that were later discovered to have been purchased. Other times it's because we've had people receive dozens upon hundreds of trivial mentions but no actual in-depth coverage. You can lobby for changes, but I can honestly say that the chances of you arguing for looser guidelines will be extremely unlikely to bear any fruit. It'd be nice if you and others could argue for looser standards because it'd make my work here a lot easier and it'd make it so I can write about YouTube celebrities with sizable followers (Cryaotic has almost 2 million followers but still fails notability guidelines), but it's just very unlikely. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   09:57, 12 November 2014 (UTC)