Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Media Show

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. ✗plicit 14:48, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Media Show (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not pass WP:GNG. The only sources currently cited are from BBC and The Guardian, neither of which are independent because BBC produces the podcast and one of the hosts has worked for The Guardian. Searching online only yields trivial mentions. The show doesn’t appear to have won any awards so there is no way that it qualifies for WP:WEBCRIT, and any claim that the show meets WP:RPRGM should take into account that it is an essay and even the essay states that “the presence or absence of reliable sources is more definitive than the geographic range of the program's audience alone.” The hosts might pass WP:GNG, but the show does not WP:INHERIT that notability. TipsyElephant (talk) 14:47, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 14:47, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 14:47, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I lean toward a keep. The Guardian is an RSP-greenlit source with an editorial firewall, which I highly doubt would be compromised just since one of the hosts used to work for them. And they're cited three times, which technically counts only once but IAR counts for something. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 17:40, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The Guardian is an independent source. I accept that the article needs more independent sources although there's nothing wrong with using BBC Press Office articles as sources. Rillington (talk) 18:27, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:39, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep this semes like very much stretching the definition of "not independant". Artw (talk) 19:28, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The Guardian is considered "generally reliable" according to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Agreed with above commenters that suggesting The Guardian isn't independent in this case is a stretch. NemesisAT (talk) 22:10, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets WP:GNG per above argument. SBKSPP (talk) 01:06, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.