Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Mysterious Mr. Epstein

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. Essentially, the arguments to delete are the strongest and backed up closest to policy. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:41, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Mysterious Mr. Epstein

[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)

There does not seem to be any indication that this podcast has anything beyond WP:ROUTINE coverage. Most of what I found seemed rather surface level and not particularly in depth. Therefore, it probably should be deleted. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:24, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:24, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:24, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:24, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:24, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could not find any reliable sources that meaningfully discuss this podcast. At best, it is too soon to have an article on this subject. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 01:31, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only trivial coverage exists. No real RSs. I have also listened to some of the podcast. Perhaps it is WP:TOOSOON. but it is WP:NOT for now Lightburst (talk) 01:49, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination Kitaab Ka Kida (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:37, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - or alternatively, redirect to Wondery. The redirect is such an obvious WP:ATD that in my opinion it should have been considered before even nominating this. However, in fact I would make a cautious argument to keep on the basis of the changes I have made. Specifically: the #1 Apple Podcast chart position, reliably sourced to Forbes, and the following (admittedly quite brief) reviews: [1], [2], [3]. Hug^syrup 11:50, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per Hugsyrup. Recently added sources are good enough for the article to be kept. _SUPER ^ASTIG 10:27, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the Forbes article found by Hugsyrup is a passing mention. The other three offerings are bloggish mentons. We have no non-trivial coverage of this podcast in WP:RS. Lightburst (talk) 23:22, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Hugsyrup. Appears to barely meet GNG.4meter4 (talk) 23:43, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:22, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Lindsay Graham (podcast host), and probably merge in American History Tellers, and expand into an article on the person behind both works. BD2412 T 05:52, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Purely by added sources which are ok and leads towards WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 09:23, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the sources BabaQ refers to consist of passing mentions, lacking substantial, in-depth, third party sustained coverage, and in no way confer or attest to the topic's notability...let alone "leads towards" it. ——SN 54129 10:08, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Of all the criticisms you can make of the sources I added (and they are certainly not perfect...) I’m not sure that ‘passing mentions’ is really accurate. One of them is a dedicated review article, and another is a substantial paragraph within a roundup of reviews. The Forbes one is a passing mention but the sole reason for adding that is because it establishes the number 1 chart position which, were this an album or book, would potentially be enough to pass an SNG. I’m honestly not overly wedded to this being a ‘keep’ but just want to make sure the sources are given a fair hearing! Hug^syrup 10:47, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Don’t mind the ”criticism” Hugsyrup. POV never trumps the guidelines and a closing admins eye.BabbaQ (talk) 13:49, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there's enough to err on the side of keeping, especially considering there's time yet for more. Usedtobecool ☎️ 11:44, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom.GhotuoIncubator (talk) 13:22, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 00:45, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't think this passes WP:GNG, and I have some WP:PROMO concerns as well. SportingFlyer T·C 02:06, 8 January 2020 (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.