Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sawbones (podcast)


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:01, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Sawbones (podcast)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This page is an advert for a podcast. Most of the refs link to the distribution website with a few book adverts thrown in for good measure. Before is showing various pod related websites to listen, some social media and nothing RS. It looks WP:PAID. Desertarun (talk) 21:32, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Fails WP:N. Desertarun (talk) 15:59, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. 2pou (talk) 01:20, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. 2pou (talk) 01:20, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. 2pou (talk) 01:20, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Regardless, as I said there are reliable sources covering the subject listed on the talk page, and thus WP:GNG is met given the coverage, and they are about the podcast itself. The sources WP:NEXIST and do not need to be actually cited in the article. Citing them in the article, and establishing a "Reception" section for example, would clearly improve the article, but that can be done over time in a WP:WIP project with WP:NORUSH. Here are the sources mentioned for convenience:
 * Keep - Perhaps you could clarify exactly what is reading like an advertisement? Then we can just clean it up. It seems to be written pretty neutrally when I read it. When I see WP:PAID, I also usually think paid contributors as well, so is there a particular COI you think needs disclosing? If it's that, that wouldnt be grounds for deletion, draftification at worst, but again, as an AfC reviewer, we're usually only checking for a neutral presentation of the facts, and this seems fairly neutral to me. I'm not seeing any overly flowery language like, "This great podcast will engross you as it teaches you about such and such..." Maybe ditch the paragraph that talks about "over 300 episodes"? If the concern is over the use of primary sources, these seem to be used in a way to simply states facts about the show or book, which would be valid under WP:PRIMARY #3. Those aren't needed to establish notability, since it has been covered in the other references and the refideas listed on the Talk page. The article could surely be improved, but that is not grounds for deletion, as summed up nicely in WP:AFD is not cleanup (not citing a guideline, just a POV, nobody WP:BITE, plz). -2pou (talk) 02:03, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The topic is not notable. It lacks WP:RS and instead has advertising links to external websites. Desertarun (talk) 07:07, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Notability is a totally different argument that was not raised in the nomination.
 * -2pou (talk) 15:02, 30 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I amended the nomination to make the lack of notability more explicit. Desertarun (talk) 16:02, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Additionally, if you have Newspapers.com access, here are a couple more: small piece (29 Oct 2018, p A22) reprinted in The Province (originally from The Washington Post) and another piece shared on 16Jul2018 between Courier News p. C2 and Asbury Park Press p. 5E -2pou (talk) 15:02, 30 April 2021 (UTC) Found the original Post piece here, but if you're out of free articles, it was reprinted in The Gazette here. -2pou (talk) 16:21, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment The majority of references are from Maximum Fun are link to their podcasts. These are primary sources and not a good source for demonstrating where the subject passes WP:GNG. Nexus000 (talk) 08:11, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The nomination did not raise GNG as a concern, initially, but see above for some excellent coverage the podcast has received. -2pou (talk) 15:02, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - While there is a reliance on primary sources currently, there is no shortage of good secondary sources available to spruce this article up a bit. A cursory Google News search for "McElroy Sawbones" - or "Sydnee Sawbones" brings up a good number of sources that could be used here from a range of publications. I'd be happy to go through and diversify the reference list. --ERAGON (talk) 09:35, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Per WP:INHERIT we need WP:RS that relate just to the podcast "Sawbones", not the people involved (the Mcelroys/Sydnee). Irrespective, I just did a search for "Sydnee Sawbones" as you suggested and it brings back - book adverts, facebook, merchandising, et al. Desertarun (talk) 10:05, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep: Article needs some clean-up by removing anything promotional. Other than that, it's good enough to pass WP:GNG per reasons and reliable sources indicated above.. ASTIG😎  (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 16:00, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep: 2pou has clearly demonstrated GNG. TipsyElephant (talk) 20:33, 5 May 2021 (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.