-
Shane and Friends (
talk|
|
history|
logs|
links|
watch) (
XfD|
restore)
This podcast page definitely deserves to be restored. It was one of the biggest podcasts of the 2010s. How could it possible not meet notability standards?
Nokia621 (
talk)
18:28, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Speedy endorse - no policy and guideline based argument has been provided. You could try to make an actual argument based on the availability of coverage in reliable sources.
- signed,
Rosguill
talk
18:49, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
reply
Overturn Strike bolded !vote by nominator First of all, the
original deletion had this argument: "Barely found anything about the podcast. Search results return only passing mentions." If you want to talk about baseless arguments, start there. The podcast was deleted from all major platforms due to a major controversial comments made by Dawson in several episodes. This was discussed by
Business Insider,
The Evening Standard,
The New Zealand Herald and many more. When the podcast did air from 2013 to 2017, it was incredibly popular.
USA Today credited him for partially reviving the podcasting genre in 2013. In 2015, iTunes featured the show in their
"Best of 2015" podcast list. It is definitely notable enough to be restored and the original deletion (with 3 people deciding) had completely baseless arguments.
Nokia621 (
talk)
19:02, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
reply
- That all appears to be coverage of Dawson himself primarily. Meanwhile, you seem to be misconstruing a Medium blog with 907 followers
[1] for iTunes itself (and we generally don't report on single-vendor listings,
WP:SINGLEVENDOR) signed,
Rosguill
talk
19:09, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
reply
- The Medium blog was copying what iTunes Podcasts put on their page. I'm not misconstruing.
Nokia621 (
talk)
19:11, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
reply
- 1) then why link the Medium source 2) moot per
WP:SINGLEVENDOR. signed,
Rosguill
talk
19:15, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Because the 2015 Best of iTunes list was in their iTunes app, never on a site.
Nokia621 (
talk)
19:26, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
reply
- In regards to single vendor, Spotify didn't even have podcasts until 2015, so there's few lists available. iTunes was one of the only providers and Soundcloud doesn't have lists. It was however on the
Fullscreen app which is another platform, which he had an exclusive video deal with.
Nokia621 (
talk)
19:29, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Speedy endorse. The minimally-attended AfD was closed as Redirect in July 2021. Since then, the appellant has been edit-warring, trying to restore the version prior to the AfD. The only reason they finally came here to DRV is that
Rosguill correctly indef page-blocked them from that battle zone. Had they come here earlier, or presented new sources on the Talk page, I would have gladly considered a new discussion. But under the
unclean hands legal doctrine, I refuse to entertain any petition coming from this disruptive editor relating to this or related pages. Not that they seem capable of mounting an argument better than, "But how can it not be notable?".
Owen×
☎
19:03, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
reply
- You're factually incorrect. I had started this deletion review before he indefinitely page-blocked me. You can literally check the UTC timing. Also, you left this comment 1 minute after I gave a long explanation of why it is notable. So instead of insulting by calling me incapable of mounting arguments, why don't you fact-check your own lies?
Nokia621 (
talk)
19:08, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
reply
- No, Owen is correct about the timing. As you should know, and
can be seen from your block log, you were blocked at 09:56, 20 May 2024 EDT. You opened this DRV at 15:02, 20 May 2024 EDT. I later corrected the block, which I had initially intended to be indefinite but was instead implemented as 24-hours (which would be silly, for an edit war spanning over 3 years). Arguing that the block post-dates your actions here is pretty transparent
wikilawyering. signed,
Rosguill
talk
19:14, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Thank you for admitting you did a temporary ban at first. Once again confirming that Owen was lying about this debate starting after being "indef page-blocked" (his words). How am I supposed to read your mind and know the 24 hour ban was an initial "mistake"? No offense, but you're gaslighting me to the max. And considering I don't read your mind, please don't read my mind saying my actions are "transparent", because you are way off-base.
Nokia621 (
talk)
19:39, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Yet another DRV appellant who did not even bother discussing with the closer (me) before rushing to file here. I'm also going to speedy endorse (as closer) per Owen and Rosguill.
Daniel (
talk)
22:46, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse. Good close. No deletion has occurred, so unless you are challenging the close, this is out of scope of DRV. If you want to revisit the matter, essentially wanting to re-
WP:SPINOUT the podcast, propose it and seek consensus on the talk page of the redirect target. —
SmokeyJoe (
talk)
23:36, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse OP hasn't said anything policy-based and seems unlikely to do so.
LEPRICAVARK (
talk)
01:22, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse, except that this doesn't allege any error by the closer. Either Redirect or Relist would have been valid closes, and in 2021 a case could be made for overturning the Redirect to Relist. But, as per OwenX, the appellant has been edit-warring since then, and has passed up any chance to ask for a Relist.
- DRV is not AFD Round 2, but the sources are garbage, so that the article should not have been Kept.
- The redirect has not been locked. An editor in good standing may submit a draft with good sources for review to
Articles for Creation. The appellant is not an editor in good standing with respect to this title.
- DRV is a content forum, but the appellant is engaging in
personal attacks, for which a real block may be in order.
Robert McClenon (
talk)
01:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
reply
-
User:Robert McClenon, regarding your 2nd dot point, it is irresponsible to advocate for any editor to create content forks in draftspace. This is not productive, much more likely will be a waste of time for all involved, and as with all content forking, it creates attribution hazards.
- Content on the Shane and Friends podcast is located at
Shane Dawson, and per consensus evident in the AfD, that’s where it belongs. If new good sources are found, they should be added to
Shane Dawson, and then, if a
WP:SPINOUT is warranted, it should be proposed at
Talk:Shane Dawson. Only then fork to draftspace if that’s the unlikely consensus on
Talk:Shane Dawson. Do not just fork to draftspace alone and in silence.
SmokeyJoe (
talk)
02:07, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
reply
-
User:SmokeyJoe - I have reread the guideline on
content forks, and I respectfully disagree with your disagreement. I have requested opinions at
Village Pump (policy). I don't think that a draft and content that has been replaced by a redirect are pages of the same type, but we shall see what other editors think.
Robert McClenon (
talk)
06:21, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
reply
-
Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Draft Content Fork Question
SmokeyJoe (
talk)
06:39, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse. No deletion to review, and spinning a page back out after a redirect does not need to come here; it can just be taken forward by building a consensus at the article talk page.
Stifle (
talk)
08:01, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
reply
|