Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Revolution Recap

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 delete‎. Consensus is that sourcing is insufficient Star Mississippi 02:41, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Revolution Recap

[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)

Subject does not meet the WP:GNG as a podcast or radio show. Let'srun (talk) 20:58, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Sports, Football, and United States of America. Let'srun (talk) 20:58, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:51, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:55, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @GiantSnowman, @Let'srun, I just finished going through the article: fixing grammar, removing dead links to other pages that don't exist, and adding sources to back-up the radio show's claims to being on air, and sources highlighting the show collaborating with other notable media programs (Yahoo, ESPN, etc.) Please let me know what you think. EmperorQuingus (talk) 21:23, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The issue I see with many of these sources is that while they cover the founder, they fail to cover the podcast itself anywhere close to WP:SIGCOV levels. WP:ITEXISTS is also not a valid keep argument. Let'srun (talk) 19:33, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@GiantSnowman @Let'srun Please see additional references added as evidence of notability, including the league’s recommendation and inclusion on a popular TV program. Revolutionfan (talk) 13:17, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Still not seeing any significant coverage about the show itself. The segment is more about the team (and its fans) rather than anything else, with the founder and show receiving only a minor mention (and the show isn't even referred to by its name). Let'srun (talk) 15:00, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Let'srun@GiantSnowmanAdditional resources have been added showing it’s multiple rankings as the top podcast covering the New England Revolution and among the top soccer podcasts on Apple Podcasts. Would like to see others weigh in before the deletion of a 17 year old page. Revolutionfan (talk) 17:31, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which of the sources show significant coverage of the podcast itself? Giant Snowman 11:22, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@GiantSnowman where I struggle with "significant coverage" is that by definition it's implying that a media source would for some reason write a story about another media source. That seems like the type of thing that would only happen if something bad happened to the media source being written about. "Notability" in terms of hosts from the show being sought out for comment, or interviewed, or the show's reporting being consistently quoted by secondary, reliable, independent of the subject, sources, as part of their own pieces, does a lot more to establish the legitimacy of a show. EmperorQuingus (talk) 14:07, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you are saying, yet if the show can't even get a passing mention in the sources provided, how does that show that it is in any way notable? If that was the case, there would be many more articles on shows of this type which have little to no coverage. Let'srun (talk) 14:17, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Two points:

1. The audio / radio sources mention the show. The Channel 5 piece with the founder of the podcast (then radio program) shows him in studio with a guest (Michael Parkhurst, then-Revolution player.) I also think it should carry some extra weight that Major League Soccer itself would take the time to recognize the show as independent media worthy of / reliable enough to list on its own site for fans looking to find more coverage of MLS teams. I understand that "it exists" isn't enough to argue the show should have a Wikipedia page, but Major League Soccer giving a nod to the podcast is pretty impressive. They wouldn't do that for some fly-by-night outfit.

2. While it's true some of the sources don't mention the actual name of the show, I contend that's more a stylistic choice than a refusal to acknowledge the show. Anecdotally, The Athletic, and other blogs, do that constantly. I think they do it because it's just easier to cite reports with what are effectively embedded footnotes than it is to consistently say "according to," if that makes sense. EmperorQuingus (talk) 15:27, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per recently added evidence of notability. Revolutionfan (talk) 18:26, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:34, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Massachusetts and Rhode Island. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:17, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Like others, I am not seeing significant coverage of this podcast. I'm not sure where people get the notion that casual mentions and namedrops satisfy the GNG and WP:SIGCOV, but they do not. Never mind that it doesn't matter worth a tinker's damn what "stylistic choices" lead a source not to name the podcast at all; under no circumstances conceivable can a source that doesn't even name a subject possibly be considered as providing significant coverage to that subject. Honestly, that's an absurd suggestion. That this article has been kicking around for seventeen years is far less a measure of whether or not it meets notability standards as of the ongoing syndrome that with nearly seven million articles, a lot drop through the cracks, and of course longevity is no immunization against notability guidelines and deletion policy. Ravenswing 03:51, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, most of the references do in fact name the podcast and the few that don't cite its hosts. One of the sources is Major League Soccer itself recommending the podcast and noting the hosts' knowledge. The podcast is also the topped ranked podcast by Feedspot covering the New England Revolution, which numerous other articles here cite for notability. Revolutionfan (talk) 14:22, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Splendid. Now, if you would, kindly link to the notability guideline providing presumptive notability for being a "topped rank podcast" covering a sports team. (For that matter, if there are "numerous other" articles that claim notability for that reason alone, kindly identify them as well, because they sound like AfD candidates.) Ravenswing 17:51, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It probably would've helped our argument earlier had we been discussing the show as a podcast rather than a radio show. Wikipedia:NPOD notes an individual podcast is generally likely to be notable if it has been produced or distributed by a notable broadcaster or media company.

To that point, Revolution Recap is distributed by Bleav, part of the Cumulus network.

Wikipedia:NPOD goes on to state: However, the presence or absence of reliable sources is more definitive than the podcast's affiliation with any particular entity. Podcasts are also more likely to be notable if they have won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization. Ideally, this award itself is also notable and already has a Wikipedia article. Being nominated for such an award in multiple years may also be considered an indicator of notability.

Revolution Recap was just nominated for an award, so we will see how that goes.

Finally, Wikipedia:NPOD states: It's also more likely that a podcast is notable if it has reached a high position on a notable podcasting chart that updates at least weekly.

We've cited Revolution Recap's ranking on FeedSpot, as well as PlayerFM, as well as Apple's podcast list. EmperorQuingus (talk) 20:35, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
NPOD being an essay -- and blatantly flagged as such, so there shouldn't possibly be any confusion or question on the subject -- it has no bearing here. I was asking for a link to a genuine notability guideline. Ravenswing 03:52, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A genuine notability guideline does not exist for podcasts. There was a proposal, but it failed. Thus I'm looking at Wikipedia:NPOD to get the opinions of others on what makes a Podcast notable. EmperorQuingus (talk) 13:29, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which, of course, have no bearing on deletion discussions. We retain (or delete) articles based on whether they meet notability guidelines, not on issues of WP:ILIKEIT. The only notability guideline bearing on podcasts is the GNG, and failing meeting that guideline, an article cannot be sustained. No one is saying that this particular podcast sucks or lacks merit; it just doesn't qualify for a Wikipedia article. Ravenswing 14:52, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will stand down, then. If the page gets deleted does it get archived? Just in case the podcast one day qualifies as notable and can return? EmperorQuingus (talk) 21:09, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Administrators can see deleted content, and here is a list of those willing to set up copies of deleted articles in your own user space: Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to provide copies of deleted articles. That way the content isn't lost, and you can restore the article at such time as it meets notability standards. Ravenswing 21:44, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As others have said, I cannot find any reliable sources that have significant coverage of the podcast itself. Passing mentions? Sure. Talk of the hosts? sure. But little on the podcast itself. -- Mike 🗩 20:19, 9 October 2023 (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.