Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MacBreak (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 no consensus. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:09, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
AfDs for this article:
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- MacBreak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The article does not meet WP:GNG. It appears that all the references are primary sources, and I'm unable to find any reliable secondary sources using Google News. The article was previously nominated for deletion in 2011 (here), but the discussion ended with no consensus. It could perhaps be merged with one of the hosts' articles, but the podcast is already mentioned in each article with the exception of Leo Laporte. I'm not sure there is much to merge into those articles anyway considering there aren't any useful sources. The podcast doesn't appear to be mentioned on TWiT.tv and might deserve a short mention. TipsyElephant (talk) 17:43, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 17:43, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 17:43, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 17:43, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
- Keep - Major hosts like Leo Laporte, iJustine and Andy Ihnatko. As I JethroBT noted in the first AfD, this is a commonly referenced outlet in the tech journalism industry (zdnet, cnet, Wired, etc) [1][2][3] I'll also point out that the nom in the first AfD played shenanigans by actually !voting twice in their own AfD and were the only "delete" votes, drawing it to an inappropriate "no consensus" close. Oakshade (talk) 19:03, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Oakshade: None of the sources you've listed above actually discuss what Macbreak is or present any useful information about it. Most of these barely mention the podcast. For instance, this article only mentions the podcast in a list of other podcasts inside of parentheses as an afterthought of someone being interviewed. Most of these sources also mention Macbreak in relation to one of the hosts, which seems to indicate that the source is much more concerned with the hosts as subjects than the podcast itself. The CNET articles are all written by the same person who appears to have been on the podcast on at least four separate occasions and on those occasions wrote the one to two sentence articles that you've cited here, here, here, and here as well as an article where he only mentions macbreak because the podcast responded to him here. I would say that none of these CNET articles are "independent of the subject," but even if they are still considered independent I wouldn't consider a few one sentence articles grounds for a stand-alone article. Even the Wired articles lack any useful information and one of them (here) is not much longer than the CNET announcements. As far as I can tell these sources don't meet WP:GNG because they do not "address the topic directly and in detail" and there are no sources that have "more than a trivial mention" of the podcast itself. I would also like to note that it doesn't matter if the hosts are notable or not because the deletion discussion is on the subject of the podcast not the people. I also think that whether or not the previous deletion discussion was fair or not is irrelevant to the current discussion. TipsyElephant (talk) 01:20, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- The only reason I mentioned the inappropriate "no consensus" close of the previous discussion is because you brought it up in your deletion rationale. Thanks for the other info. Oakshade (talk) 02:56, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- I mentioned the previous nomination to demonstrate that I was complying with guidelines 4 and 5 under WP:BEFORE and to provide context for this AfD. I think a decade is sufficient time between AfDs and I do not feel that my concerns have previously been addressed in adaquete detail. TipsyElephant (talk) 11:19, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- The only reason I mentioned the inappropriate "no consensus" close of the previous discussion is because you brought it up in your deletion rationale. Thanks for the other info. Oakshade (talk) 02:56, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Oakshade: None of the sources you've listed above actually discuss what Macbreak is or present any useful information about it. Most of these barely mention the podcast. For instance, this article only mentions the podcast in a list of other podcasts inside of parentheses as an afterthought of someone being interviewed. Most of these sources also mention Macbreak in relation to one of the hosts, which seems to indicate that the source is much more concerned with the hosts as subjects than the podcast itself. The CNET articles are all written by the same person who appears to have been on the podcast on at least four separate occasions and on those occasions wrote the one to two sentence articles that you've cited here, here, here, and here as well as an article where he only mentions macbreak because the podcast responded to him here. I would say that none of these CNET articles are "independent of the subject," but even if they are still considered independent I wouldn't consider a few one sentence articles grounds for a stand-alone article. Even the Wired articles lack any useful information and one of them (here) is not much longer than the CNET announcements. As far as I can tell these sources don't meet WP:GNG because they do not "address the topic directly and in detail" and there are no sources that have "more than a trivial mention" of the podcast itself. I would also like to note that it doesn't matter if the hosts are notable or not because the deletion discussion is on the subject of the podcast not the people. I also think that whether or not the previous deletion discussion was fair or not is irrelevant to the current discussion. TipsyElephant (talk) 01:20, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 11:34, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 11:34, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:15, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:15, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
- Comment I was recently introduced to the "notability fallacies" and I believe the previous arguments to keep the page fall under these fallacies. Saying that the hosts are notable is an argument that the podcast should WP:INHERIT notability. Referencing searches on various outlets is a mix of WP:GHITS or perhaps WP:LOTSOFSOURCES and WP:TRIVCOV. TipsyElephant (talk) 14:04, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
- You've already made these arguments. Let other editors weigh in and see if you've built a consensus to delete this article.Oakshade (talk) 16:25, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
- Keep: The article needs some clean-up by removing unnecessary parts and primary sources like Twit.tv. Other than that, it's good enough to pass WP:GNG with reliable sources indicated by Oakshade and in the previous AfD. ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 15:00, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
- @Superastig: would you mind linking to one or two of the sources you believe demonstrate notability? As far as I can tell the only source from the previous AfD that isn't a permanently dead link is this one, which dedicates less than a dozen words to the topic of MacBreak. TipsyElephant (talk) 18:41, 5 July 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.