Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ten Junk Miles


 * 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 delete. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 03:58, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Ten Junk Miles

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:GNG, with only one (MyChicagoAthlete) source with any potentially significant coverage of the podcast. — MarkH21talk 20:17, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21talk 20:17, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21talk 20:17, 9 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete I have to agree - this simply doesn't meet WP:WEBCRIT. The vast majority of sources are not independent. Others only mention the subject in passing (such as this). Some don't even mention the subject at all (such as this and this). The source that the nominator mentioned as coming closest to meeting the WP:GNG criteria is local coverage. Maybe it's just WP:TOOSOON for this podcast - but for now, it doesn't meet the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. Jmertel23 (talk) 20:52, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Sources include 1 major independent source fully about the Article as noted above, along with multiple other independent sources including ranking in Top Ten Running Podcasts by Apple, a reference by "Canadian Running Magazine", and reference by "Runners World" (a major runners web based magazine). Jkiffmeyer (talk) 21:00, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * All of the other sources are just mentions rather than significant coverage, which is what WP:GNG and WP:WEBCRIT#1 are about. So far, the subject falls short of having multiple reliable sources with significant coverage. — MarkH21talk 07:43, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that editors have been canvassed to this discussion.
 * No evidence of canvassing that I see. Facebook post does not appear to be placed by or at the request of an editor, did not call for any action, and has not resulted in any impact here. Based on my review of wikipedia canvassing page I recommend the canvassing notice be removed. - Jkiffmeyer (talk) 14:53, 16 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep: Per Jkiffmeyer. SUPER ASTIG 07:23, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * 1 source does not make GNG. — MarkH21talk 02:13, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * GNG has no requirement for more than 1 major source. Having 1 major source and a few other mentions by sources means this discussion for deletion is valid, but not a clear indication for deletion. - Jkiffmeyer (talk) 14:41, 16 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete Does not pass general notability guidelines. I could not find multiple reliable secondary sources in which the subject is given significant coverage. There is also not enough coverage for the podcast - from mainstream resources - to warrant WP:BASIC at this time. Perhaps it is WP:TOOSOON. It can always be drafted if the creator of the article is concerned and wishes it to be. Missvain (talk) 18:10, 16 January 2020 (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.