Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trash Taste


 * 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 no consensus. The main debate was whether the article met WP:GNG, specifically whether or not there was significant coverage in reliable sources. Both sides made valid and applicable arguments here. Ultimately though neither argument was strong enough to justify a keep or delete consensus. Interestingly the WP:WEBCRIT guideline was not brought up–this may be a good point of debate in a new discussion. More analysis of the sources reliability and significance is also justified. (non-admin closure) –– 𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲  talk  06:30, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Trash Taste

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Does not meet WP:GNG. Currently one of the Japan Times articles being referenced doesn’t even mention Trash Taste or Video Podcasts. The article does discuss the hosts of the show, but the podcast does not WP:INHERIT notability from hosts or guests. The second Japan Times article actually mentions the podcast, but it’s an extremely brief and trivial mention. The Mipon article very briefly mentions the podcast, but from what I can tell the site is just a WP:BLOG written by Alfred Toh. I’m not sure if Alfred Toh is an authoritative source or not, but regardless the source is trivial. The rest of the sources are not independent and reliable secondary sources. When searching online there are some WP:GHITS in part because the words trash taste are commonly used together and because the podcast has trivial mentions in a few sources, but I can’t find anything good. Maybe someone else can find some good non-digital or non-free sources that I’m unaware of to demonstrate notability. I began discussing the notability of the article at Talk:Trash Taste where one of the major contributors to the article,, has indicated that they believe the subject is notable. The article could be merged into GeeXPlus or merged into BookWalker. TipsyElephant (talk) 12:19, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 12:19, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 12:19, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 12:19, 20 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep - As the largest contributor of the article, I strongly oppose the deletion of this article and have been critical of the attempt to merge with the significantly smaller BookWalker article (by view count alone, Trash Taste gets more than twice the average views than BookWalker). At issue, I believe, is the niche subject matter of the podcast (anime, manga, fandom, and Japanese Pop Culture) and it being hosted by three people, each being more notable than the podcast itself, despite the podcast having over a million subscribers on its own on YouTube. It is obviously a notable podcast, there are third party reference that discuss and mention it, there is even an interview about the show by the FCCJ, who which interview and hold press conferences of world leaders and other figures that are in or visit Japan. Of course, I welcome any additional improvements by others to make the article better, but deleting it because of one editor's opinion of not having the gold standard is ludicrous. --WashuOtaku (talk) 13:04, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Japanese pop culture is not a "niche subject matter," it's very much mainstream. Regardless, do you have any sources which cover the podcast in-depth? I'm tending to agree with the nominator that, although there are a large number of sources in the article, many of them are either not independent or trivial. Mlb96 (talk) 17:59, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * My in-depth reference was the FCCJ event, where the three hosts were interviewed by the FCCJ about them and the podcast. However, this is apparently not considered a reliable source because it is a YouTube video and interviews don't qualify (for some reason). --WashuOtaku (talk) 19:48, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:INTERVIEW sources are generally consider primary sources not secondary. So it would not meet the WP:GNG requirement that "Sources should be secondary sources." TipsyElephant (talk) 23:35, 20 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep: Well written article. Good editor. It can become a GA. Not through AfD. Leanne Sepulveda (talk) 17:26, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Being well written does not make the article notable (WP:ARTN). Your account is also fairly new and you've been flagged for canvassing. You emphasized that the editor is good, but the primary editor does not WP:OWN the article. TipsyElephant (talk) 20:42, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Whether the article is well written or poorly written, notability is the concern. SBKSPP (talk) 01:20, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It needs a bit of work on both copyediting and sourcing to get anywhere close to GA. --MuZemike 16:23, 27 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete, in the interest of full disclosure, I am the creator of the BookWalker article. Now that disclosure is out of the way, I am not convinced by any of the !keep rationals above. For one, pageviews are not an indication of notability, which is directly stated on WP:PAGEVIEWS. Second, all of the non-primary sources in this article just give it a passing mention and nothing that passes WP:SIGCOV. I tried to search for references and admittedly I am not familiar with podcasts much so I just checked Anime News Network and other sources at WP:A&M/ORS, but came up with nothing. As far as a merge, the article on BookWalker is more about the E-book store rather than the subsidiary GeeXPlus. If an article for GeeXPlus gets created, I wouldn't oppose a merge with that, but I don't feel BookWalker is very appropriate. Link20XX (talk) 04:12, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * My rational of mentioning the view count is two-fold. First that people are more likely to search out Trash Taste as oppose to GeeXPlus/Bookwalker (despite the fact that GeeXPlus/Bookwalker is linked on Trash Taste, as well as several other articles). The second is for those that vote here to take note that despite the article's short existence it has already generated considerable views for something that is claimed to be not notable and more so compared to a longer established article, that the submitter put forward to be merged with as a possible solution. --WashuOtaku (talk) 13:13, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Just because the title "Trash Taste" gets more pageviews isn't a reason not to merge it into GeeXPlus especially because we can just create a redirect. It's also worth noting that pageviews werelikely increased by opening this AfD or someone searching for something with the same name. The title "Trash Taste" is fairly generic whereas "GeeXPlus" is quite unique. TipsyElephant (talk) 16:20, 26 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep, it has enough sources. I don’t see what good deleting the article would do. Sahaib (talk) 12:41, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Having a lot of sources doesn't necessarily mean they count towards WP:GNG, see WP:REFBOMB. Deleting articles on non-notable topics is a reason for deletion, see WP:DEL-REASON. Link20XX (talk) 14:30, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It now has 27 references (a lot of which are independent). Sahaib (talk) 06:36, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Having WP:LOTSOFSOURCES or how neat the article is does not make the program notable.
 * Keep Meets WP:GNG per WashuOtaku's argument. SBKSPP (talk) 01:19, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ASTIG😎  (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 12:30, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete: Keeping WP:INHERIT and WP:OTHERSTUFF in mind, I think it's just not notable, going by WP:GNG, with the main issue being a lack of reliable sources. The Japan Times and CBR articles are ok, but even then, they're just passing mentions and only a couple of other non-primary sources seem to exist. Maybe at some point we can revisit this, but as of right now, in my view it's non-notable. Disclosure: I listen to this podcast. Curbon7 (talk) 19:44, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete: The sourcing on this is borderline, I'd like to see more in industry coverage specifically about the podcast before this is a full article. Would support Drafting this page until it's ready. Esw01407 (talk) 19:20, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep: I believe FCCJ interview and magazine would count as significant coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. I noticed nobody has added this yet so I'll leave a link to the digital copy of the magazine source Mathchem.21 (talk) 21:52, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * This was addressed above. WP:INTERVIEW sources are considered primary sources. Link20XX (talk) 14:13, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The new link provided is a published article, written by Fred Varcoe, and not the interview video; this should be considered a valid secondary source. --WashuOtaku (talk) 16:59, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not downloading a file on my phone just to check it, but even if it does count, GNG requires multiple sources. Link20XX (talk) 03:11, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Let us breakdown what GNG says: Significant coverage - This is a podcast that has over one million subscribers on YouTube. Reliable - We have that, not just the most recenter source that goes into great detail, but other references of the podcast. Sources - Says there is no fixed number, disputing your claim that it is not enough, because sources can vary in detail. We now have a very detailed article regarding the podcast. Independent of the subject - We have identified that the source is indeed independent (as are several other sources in the article). Presumed - I don't think anyone is saying this podcast does not exist. So we had already cleared this before it even came up here, but with this new source, there should be no mistake now that this article is a keeper. --WashuOtaku (talk) 04:25, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I think I perhaps conveyed my meaning wrong. Previously, others have mentioned that "they believe this sourcing borderline"; as such when I discovered a new source on this topic, I figured, it would be enough to demonstrate notability. Indeed I meant to convey that the magazine article by FCCJ, clearly a secondary reliable in-depth source, along with Japan Times source "New trends in 'J-vlogging' allow for a more diverse range of views on Japan", combined demonstrates Trash Taste to have significant coverage. I agree that the Japan Times sources coverage on the topic is only one part of the greater topic on Western Japanese vloggers. However, the amount of details given about the Trash Taste podcast and its hosts in the article means it still can be considered a non-trivial secondary source. Reason is because after reading it I can confirm "no original research is needed to extract the content" as per Wikipedia guidelines in WP:Trivial mentions. All the other sources on Trash Taste currently I believe are trivial, primary, or unreliable. Therefore, there are, as I see, two independent secondary reliable sources on Trash Taste. Of course, now the question still stands whether two independent secondary-sources can satisfy WP:Multiple sources. This is obviously a subjective matter as guidelines are ambiguous about the number of sources required. I however personally believe it does demonstrate notability hence my statement that this page should be kept. Mathchem.21 (talk) 4:20, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Having a Million subscribers on YouTube doesn't automatically make the podcast notable, nor is that what WP:SIGCOV is. I disagree that the Japan Times article is in-depth, as it is 30 paragraphs long and only one of them even mentions the podcast. Link20XX (talk) 09:57, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not sure you read what I wrote. I did not state that Trash Taste is notable because it has a million subscribers. Neither did I state the Japan Time article is in-depth. I simply stated it is not a trivial mention (as GNG WP:GNG requires sources to be non-trivial). The two are not equivalent. Mathchem.21 (talk) 11:08, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The first part of my comment was addressing WashuOtaku's comment I also don't understand the comment you just made. Significant coverage or trivial mention is the same thing as both are referring to the depth of coverage, just a different way of mentioning it. Link20XX (talk) 11:20, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: One more relist to evaluate the recent source indicated in the discussion.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ASTIG😎  (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 01:00, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete, the analysis of the sources listed above pretty clearly indicates that this person does not pass GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 02:00, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * What person? This is a podcast. --WashuOtaku (talk) 02:30, 5 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment, in my opinion this discussions' result is no consensus (I can’t close the discussion, as I’m involved in it). Sometimes the discussion seems like it's going to go one way, but then more people give their opinion. Sahaib3005 (talk) 06:47, 6 August 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.