Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Mother of All Talk Shows

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. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 09:15, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Mother of All Talk Shows

[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)

Reviewing the sources here, all the third-party RSes cited are either passing mentions or don't name the show itself at all. There's no evidence of notability independent of the host George Galloway himself. As such, I redirected to the host. This was objected to, so I'm putting this up for delete and redirect - unless there are in fact find good sources to the standards of WP:RPRGM, which requires general notability - David Gerard (talk) 17:20, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Radio, Russia, and United Kingdom. David Gerard (talk) 17:20, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Same situation as with The Chris Matthews Show (not independent of Chris Matthews), Tucker Carlson Tonight (not independent of Tucker Carlson), The Jim Jefferies Show (not independent of Jim Jefferies), etc., etc. For many more such examples, see Category:American television news shows by decade and subcategories. This shows that the community tends to prefer having such talk shows as separate articles, likely because it has distinct advantage as regards thematic infoboxes, categorisation, etc. Sourcing can certainly be improved, and this for example is certainly not a "passing mention". — kashmīrī ^TALK 18:05, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- It is literally a passing mention of the show itself, it's Galloway mentioning it in passing in an article about Galloway. It contains no information about the show beyond it existing. Do you have any RS coverage of the show itself? - David Gerard (talk) 18:14, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  In case you didn't read it, the entire article is about Galloway as talk show host – about the show's beginnings, about its growth, about the topics discussed.
  so you agree, it's about Galloway and not about The Mother of All Talk Shows, then, and supports the existence of the host's article and not the non-notable subtopic at hand here - David Gerard (talk) 10:24, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  
  Sourcing quality is typical for show articles on Wikipedia as you can easily check. — kashmīrī ^TALK 19:10, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  you mean, inadequate and not up to Wikipedia standards? WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is considered a bad argument in notability discussions - David Gerard (talk) 10:22, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Yes, and that's why I responded as weak keep – the subject passes GNG in my view and only needs improved sourcing. — kashmīrī ^TALK 10:25, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
so, do these sources actually exist? 'Cos the ones on the article aren't showing the notability of the show - David Gerard (talk) 10:26, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If they showed it, we wouldn't be here. — kashmīrī ^TALK 10:28, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do sources clearly showing its notability actually exist? So far you're appealing to hypothetical sources you're not producing - David Gerard (talk) 10:51, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:51, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep per Kashmiri's argument. SBKSPP (talk) 00:11, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 07:24, 18 August 2022 (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.