Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Distorted View Show (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:27, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

The Distorted View Show
AfDs for this article:


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

Does not pass WP:GNG or WP:WEBCRIT. The previous AfD ended in no consensus because no one participated in the discussion. I can't find any better sources and the best sources currently cited are minor awards. Maybe if the awards had been a Webby Award and an Ambie Award I would consider it enough to pass WP:WEBCRIT, but I don't think a couple podcast awards is enough. Tim Henson is a redirect so merging or redirecting to the host doesn't make sense. The page could maybe be redirected to Sirius Satellite Radio, but it doesn't seem worth it. TipsyElephant (talk) 16:15, 24 December 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 16:39, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Entertainment,  and Internet. TipsyElephant (talk) 16:15, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete I find no sources for the podcast, other than download/streaming sites. Oaktree b (talk) 16:34, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep This certainly isn't everyone's cup of tea for a show, but commitment to a podcast daily a year before it came to prominence, for nearly twenty years, and being produced for seven years before that, along with time linked to Sirius? This passes WP:GNG for me. Also should be properly noted that the first nom was in limbo for thirteen years because of a lack of transclusion, so I don't even consider the first nom to apply to anything.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 01:10, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * are there any particular sources that you believe demonstrate that the subject has received significant coverage? TipsyElephant (talk) 01:29, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * That would be a strong case for notability, but we'd need sources discussing it, before we can keep the article here. Oaktree b (talk) 16:34, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete - Article's subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NWEB. Yes, WP:ITSOLD for a podcast, but WP:INHERENTWEB makes it very clear that nothing like that matters if it doesn't have the sourcing to back up those assertions of notability, and this article's subject does not. I don't think winning one of the several dozen awards The Podcast Awards gives out annually shows notability, given that the awards are based solely on a public poll (such polls are extremely easy to manipulate, especially back in 2005/2006). It's also noted in a source in the award's Wikipedia article that this competition is not well known or covered outside of a comparatively tight circle of podcasters and bloggers so especially in its first two years in 2005/2006 it would not have been a "well known" award, which is what WP:WEBCRIT looks for. This is confirmed by the fact that I could find no independent coverage of this podcast winning the award; if there had been such coverage that might be an indicator as to its significance, but I could not find any such coverage. - Aoidh (talk) 17:57, 6 January 2023 (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.