Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Duncan (podcaster)


 * 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. No consensus to delete, and this is the wrong forum for proposing a merge. Michig (talk) 07:51, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Mike Duncan (podcaster)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Per WP:1E, content from this article should included into the The History of Rome (podcast), and this name should redirect there. LK (talk) 00:31, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   00:51, 19 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. "Mike Duncan's Revolutions podcast is notable in addition to The History of Rome, thus I do not believe it makes sense to merge everything into The History of Rome (podcast). Wikipedia pages on podcasters are fairly common, usually meeting notably criteria, especially those with many sources available - see  American Podcasters" Gloriousglib (talk) 17:07, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete After reviewing references, article appears to lack secondary, independent reliable sourcing to establish Duncan's notability, under simplest of WP guidelines.Cllgbksr (talk) 16:01, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 23 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Weak keep - Articles about bloggers and podcasters seem to have a tough time avoiding AfD on wikipedia. In general, I think that blogs and podcasts can be reliable sources when the creator of the blog/podcast is an expert on the subject. This is in line with WP:RS. Given Duncan's coverage in podcasts (such as an interview at Podcast squared) and coverage throughout the blogosphere, I think he has received significant coverage from independent reliable sources. Smmurphy(Talk) 02:20, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete or Merge. The difficulty with bloggers and podcasters is that there is no editorial oversight to insure quality and some degree of NPOV. Are they expected to pass WP:Prof or the much lower standards of WP:GNG? Xxanthippe (talk) 02:50, 23 April 2017 (UTC).
 * keep per smmurphy Toveswuu hed (talk) 12:22, 24 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. Per Wikipedia's notability criteria, "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject". I contend that sources from Vox, PodcastSquared, Forbes and Isthmus suffice this requirement. Thedropsoffire (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:50, 24 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. As mentioned by other editors, significant coverage in independent reliable sources are present in the article.  Additionally, the rationale in the AfD request is based off of WP:1E, "People notable for only one event", and I am unclear as to how two podcasts running a combined eight/nine years qualifies as "one event".  Egsan Bacon (talk) 16:38, 25 April 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.