Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Offsiders


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Liz Read! Talk! 06:46, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Offsiders

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:NTV. No information about the program’s segments. Redirect to the list of programs broadcast by the ABC, if no notability is found. Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 (his talk page) 06:14, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Australia. Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 (his talk page) 06:14, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  06:17, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.  The review notes: "The second show, Offsiders (Sunday 10.30am), follows the politically minded Insiders program so seamlessly that all the budget-conscious ABC has to do is to remind Barrie Cassidy, who hosts both shows, to think scores instead of scandals and swap armchair-reclining political "opinionators" such as Gerard Henderson, Andrew Bolt and Piers Ackerman (known to some as the "axis of evil") with authors and sports journalists Gideon Haigh and John Harms. Again, like Head 2 Head, Offsiders has a pleasingly understated feel about it, not least because it forwards the radical idea (these days at least) that you don't have to be a big name former player to have something worthwhile to say about sport. If anything, it allows for opinion unfettered by allegiances which, in turn, allows for a few well-aimed barbs and not just a "sport's great, mate" attitude."  The review notes: "That small benefit doesn't always save Offsiders, which retains the same host, format and almost the same name as its 9am Sunday political stablemate, Insiders, from being just a pale imitation of a sports program. A recent episode looking at the Tour de France was a case in point: given that the ABC promises intelligent, insightful debate about sporting issues, it might have helped had one of the sporting scribes in residence had more than a nodding acquaintance with road cycling. ... Cassidy has a modest air of on-screen confidence that appears to engender a Parky-like level of relaxation from his media guests. But maybe by 10.30am, things need livening up. Offsiders purports to bring the same level of challenging discourse to the sporting arena but there's no doubt Insiders packs the heavier punch."  The review notes: "Offsiders is a show for anyone who's serious about their sport, providing challenging, insightful, humorous debate about the one topic that dominates weekends - sport. However the discussion will be driven by passionate spectators rather than participants. The show will include a dynamic mixture of sports results and intelligent and witty analysis from the punters' point of view."  The article notes: "Offsiders special preview will include detailed analysis of the Cup field, reviews of the key lead-up races, interviews with the leading trainers and jockeys and robust discussion. The team will also review Derby Day while looking ahead to the Melbourne Cup, Oaks Day and Stakes Day." There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Offsiders to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 07:43, 17 October 2023 (UTC) </li></ul>


 * Keep. Great job by Cunard as usual, comfortably meets the WP:GNG. Jenks24 (talk) 09:17, 18 October 2023 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.