Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/The Tuesday Club

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Geoffjw1978 T L C 00:09, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

The Tuesday Club

[edit]
(
)

Created/expanded by The C of E (talk). Self nom at 14:28, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment. The lead of the article says that it is about a podcast. It was named after the eponymous drinking club, which is not mentioned in the lead, and which does not appear to have involved any of the podcasters.
The 13 references seem to be nearly all about the drinking club, and I can find only one ref [1] which provides more than a passing mention of the podcast.
AFAICS, the drinking club appears to be notable per WP:GNG, but I don't see that the article includes evidence to establish the notability of the podcast. It shares the name of the drinking club, but there seems to be no direct connection. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:38, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
I've rearranged the article so that is more about the drinking club and demoted the podcast. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 09:06, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

{{3O}}

I'm not really sure that the podcast should get more than a brief mention in an article about the drinking club. The current dominance of material on the podcast feels like a form of WP:COATRACK (tho without any of the POV-pushing which usually is required for that labelling). I did a few test edits to show what the article would look like with the extraneous material removed, and self-reverted. The cut-down version does not support ALT1, but (subject to the usual DYK checks) it does seem to support the original hook.
You may want a second opinion on whether I am right to think that combining the two topics in this way is inappropriate, and WP:WINAC suggests that it may be okay. So I'll ask for a second opinion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:32, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure that the podcast stuff is coatrack as it's not trying to obscure the information about the drinking club. Taking a look at your proposal, I can understand cutting the awards bit out and would have no problem with that, however I would not be in favour of removing the Hillsborough controversy section as that was a major issue that led to notability of the podcast and led to the reference that you pointed out being published which gave notability to the podcast. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 12:00, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure either, which is why I have requested a third opinion :)
I think we disagree about the notability of the podcast, and if I'm wrong on that it may belong in a standalone article. But it doesn't seem right to me that the article goes on this journey from the existence of a drinking club to its name being used for a podcast, and then in to a lot of detail on a controversy over the podcast which has no connection at all to the main topic of the article. Maybe this could be best described as giving WP:UNDUE weight to the podcast. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:31, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
  • 3O Request: Hello! This is a response to the third opinion request from an uninvolved editor. My role is to assist in resolving the dispute. The third opinion process is informal and nonbinding. I don't think this is anything like a coatrack, just an inappropriate merging to two only tangentially related subjects that happen to share a name. The podcast would warrant, at most, a one or two line mention in an article about the drinking club. It could have a standalone article if it were notable, but it doesn't appear to be very notable. Gigs (talk) 13:58, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
OK, I've cut it down now. Does this alleviate the problem stopping a DYK? The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 14:26, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Many thanks to Gigs for taking time to offer a 3rd opinion.
CoE, I think that there is still excessive detail on the podcast. I trimmed it down in this test, then self-reverted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
As a compromise, I've cut it down to 2 lines long, slightly extending your proposal as I do believe that the Hillsborough comment should be mentioned in some way as it did cause quite a storm in the UK. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 15:13, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
The Daily Star didn't mention the TC. The Mirror mentioned the TC in para 2, but otherwise it was all about Davies. The Telegraph also just named the blog in para 2. AFAICS, the criticism of the Hillsb comment focused on Alan Davies, and barely namechecked his blog. So it should be covered on the Alan Davies page, where it is not currently mentioned.
The usual way of handling this sort of thing would be with a hatnote at the top of The Tuesday Club saying something like For the football podcast, see Alan Davies.. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:55, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Fine. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 16:21, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Nomination needs a complete review now that the above issues have been settled. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:30, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Article is new enough, it was created 11 October and nominated the same day. With 1934 characters it is long enough, and it is neutral. The hook is short enough, and backed up by an inline citation (AGF on the offline source), but I struck the ALT1 hook as the text is no longer present in the article. QPQ done, this one is good to go. Mentoz86 (talk) 21:30, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/The_Tuesday_Club&oldid=1021315076"