Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Double Elvis Productions

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 redirect to Jake Brennan. As there seems to be substantial interest in merging, article history will be left for that purpose. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:26, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Double Elvis Productions

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails WP:NCORP 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 14:45, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:NCORP/WP:SIGCOV. The Boston Globe piece already cited in the article is significant coverage of the company, as is this Deadline article I found in a BEFORE search. Without a source analysis, or a clearly competent WP:BEFORE search by the nominator I am not seeing a strong case for deletion.4meter4 (talk) 15:12, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As the author of this page I don't feel qualified to explain why it's pretty clear (and agreed on by the above commenter) that this is a page worthy of inclusion. Multiple webby awards, national press, and was covered in Variety Magazine as recently as this week. [1] Slazarus09 — Preceding undated comment added 16:14, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. Not a contested draftification, but simply WP:UPE editing.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:22, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Entertainment, and Companies. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:54, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - There are two issues here, a conduct issue and a content issue:
- - The notability of the company is established by the Webby award for the podcast.
  - The conflict of interest editing and the meatpuppetry are obvious.
  - AFD is a content forum. Conduct is not a reason to delete.
  - Draftification is an Ignore All Rules response to a blatant attempt to force non-neutrally written material into article space, and to have it indexed by Google's spiders, by what amounts to brute force.
  - I think that User:Onel5969 and User:Timtrent know that I dislike undisclosed paid editing as much as they do, but salting notable topics because of corrupt promotion is not the answer.
  - The draft should then be reviewed by a neutral reviewer, and returned to article space when found to be neutral.
  - The conduct issue should go to a conduct forum.
  - There is no right answer to this flagrant violation of conflict of interest and neutral point of view. I think that this is the least wrong answer.

Robert McClenon (talk) 02:02, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If the subjects are notable, then they're notable. That is what AfD is about determining. All arguments about anything else should be ignored. Issues with non-neutral writing in articles is a content issue and should be fixed in article, with stubification if necessary. Anyways, here's sources on the subject:

Saval, Malina (October 12, 2022). "Double Elvis Team Grows Storytelling Success Through Podcasting Series 'Disgraceland,' 'Dead and Gone'". Variety. Retrieved October 14, 2022.

White, Peter (September 29, 2021). "'Disgraceland' Producer Double Elvis Ramps Up Podcast Slate With Four Music Series". Deadline Hollywood. Retrieved October 14, 2022.

Gerber, Dana (September 29, 2021). "Team behind 'Disgraceland' to launch new music-related podcast, acquire three others". Boston Globe. Retrieved October 14, 2022.

Ponti, Aimsel (July 21, 2022). "Music podcast launches with episode on Portland". Portland Press Herald. Retrieved October 14, 2022 – via ProQuest.

Seems straightforward to me. Silver seren^C 03:11, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Jake Brennan: Page should be deleted but between Double Elvis Productions, Jake Brennan and Disgraceland (podcast) there may be enough for a single page. Gusfriend (talk) 07:21, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Of the three, the podcast has the best sources (main subject of more sources and more in-depth coverage) and the best argument for notability; although all three pass WP:SIGCOV per the sources provided by Silver seren in each AFD. Further, as a merge is not neccesary; WP:ATD does not apply in this context. Any merger discussion should happen at WP:MERGEPROP. I personally would oppose merging the podcast into the article on Brennan.4meter4 (talk) 02:28, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Along with those advocating Keep, Delete and Draftify, there is Merge proposal that might be considered (though it looks like all Merge targets are currently being considered at AFD).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jake Brennan Fails NCORP criteria for establishing notability. None of the references provide in-depth "Independent Content" about the *company*. For example, the Webby award is for the Podcast (which already has an article). HighKing⁺⁺ 18:12, 28 October 2022 (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.