Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Redding News Review

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)} 16:00, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redding News Review

[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)

Recreated by an SPA after the last AFD for the sites creator Rob Redding had a consensus to delete. wizzito | say hello! 15:27, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 15:27, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 15:27, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (no matter the outcome of other related AfD), not notable enough on its own and contains content copied from the main Redding article. Rlink2 (talk) 16:24, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Similar to the other article, this is different from the old "Redding News Review" article that was deleted. A copy of the old article is also here: https://ghostarchive.org/archive/NOQmu Rlink2 (talk) 16:46, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Georgia (U.S. state). CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:33, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ Keep Having just found reference to it in a PhD dissertation and seeing it mentioned in mainstream press as well as Snopes, I consider that adds up to enough to just scrape through. I think it needs work, I think it's a bit promotional and bloated, but I emphasize the need for work over deletion. CT55555 (talk) 22:17, 25 March 2022 (UTC) (Edit today, after my rewrite changing to keep CT55555 (talk) 16:56, 1 April 2022 (UTC))[reply]
Well, its true that there are some good sources, but it really isn't suitable for an article on its own I would say - it should be merged with the main article provided that is kept. Regarding the Content section: Not every minute detail needs to be written on WP just because RSes cover it - for example, the section Leonard Pitts threats doesn't cover why or how RNR's coverage was notable or signifcant - just that it was the first to get there, which is nice but doesn't deserve its whole section.

If you remove the quotes (which basically add no new information) those sections are really just a sentence or two long. And if we are going to keep these little "mini sections", the false reporting about Troy Davis should be restored to make sure the article is not biased towards anyone. The section Radio Show in its current state is not needed.
If the article on the Redding News Review in particular is kept, some parts shuld be removed and some portions of the archived old version should be restored. Major cleanup to avoid WP:PROMO, among other things, would be needed. Rlink2 (talk) 04:40, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think we are mostly agreeing. Especially on the need to major clean up, cut down massively on the PROMO. Clearly not agreeing on keep or not, but I think media sources are important to have, even if as a stub, as it's really helpful to the wider Wikipedia for us to know what sources are. But I respect your point. To go back to where we do agree, the majority of this article should be edited out. CT55555 (talk) 09:14, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are important, but some of the sections are not. Removing all the useless sections would result in a stub of a few setences, at which point a merge with the existing article would make sense.

Compare this to the way more notable The Joe Rogan Experience, where not just the podcast is covered, but its history, sales, etc.... If their coverage is covered in the article, then its because it was widely reported upon and critqued by others. THe article doesn't describe every little thing Joe Rogan has said.

The only sections in "content" that should be kept is Stromae and maybe Brian Williams. Rlink2 (talk) 12:01, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Everything you say is reasonable, but I still disagree for the following reasons:
The comment below about racial bias on Wikipedia is relevant here

I give extra value to articles about media, as in the context of the wider wikipedia project, it's important for us all to know about media, as it becomes detail relevant to AfD

I think editing it down to stub and keeping it is a acceptable outcome and it will grow and I'm happy to set up alerts and work on that and grow it, as I do with many other articles that are borderline.

(Noting the above is opinion driven) the primary point I want to emphasise is that I think it just scrapes through on GNG.

I don't like it when people here just restate their case without being persuaded, so I hope it doesn't seem like I'm not open minded here, I am, but I remain with my "weak keep" having genuinely considered your vey reasonable counter arguments. CT55555 (talk) 14:36, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~Redirect to his article, if that is kept. Mere mentions have been turned into entire paragraphs here, same as in the Rob Redding article. Cite for Adweek was listed as from NPR, which makes me wonder. The claim that he has written "best-selling" books is false - he has self-published Kindle books that are way down Amazon's lists. (See my analysis on the AFD for Redding.) None of the sources here are substantially about the radio show. Purely promotional. Lamona (talk) 18:33, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article has been greatly improved, but I still don't see it meeting GNG. There are many mentions in articles about other topics, one citation in a doctoral dissertation. The most extensive source, the Washington Post, is about Redding himself. I still believe this should be a section in the article about him, not a separate article. A redirect would be possible although perhaps not necessary. Lamona (talk) 17:29, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@LamonaI have added a section called Reception and influence of the web site. Please review. Thanks! Gregpolk (talk) 14:19, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In short, deleting parts of black history is not what we should be in the business of doing period. Gregpolk (talk) 14:00, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I went a bit WP:TNT on this, deleted most of it and started over. I hope people will see it as an improvement. CT55555 (talk) 16:12, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for improving this article! Gregpolk (talk) 16:34, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback. I saw that you created it and was worried that you would not appreciate me over writing your work, but I think it is better this way and more aligned with Wikipedia style. Your comments about racial bias on Wikipedia on the other AfD discussion are important and I'm trying to spend my time here creating and improving articles that address the many biases here. Feel free to tag me if there are any other pages where you think I could be helpful. CT55555 (talk) 16:55, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@CT55555Thanks. No worries on the corrections. I am still learning after all these years. We have the same goals and have no problem working with you in the future. Gregpolk (talk) 18:42, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@CT55555 I added this on rob redding: Redding has written twelve self-published bestselling books on Amazon's hourly list, including Target, Dark Soul and The Professor: Witnessing White Power (2019) ISBN 978-1692336233

Redding has two academic articles. He wrote "Black voices, White power: Members of the Black press make meaning of media hegemony" in the Journal of Black Studies He wrote the "Resolution of Risk" in “The Journal of the International Public Debate Association.” Gregpolk (talk) 16:14, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@CT55555I added a reception and influence section which I think helps balance out the article. Gregpolk (talk) 17:50, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Reevaluate article after recent changes that have been made to it.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:23, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Rob Redding (and trim judiciously). Passing mentions don't satisfy WP:GNG, and content about notable guests (e.g. Tommy J. Curry) is better left to articles about those people. Keep in mind, Not everything true or existing must be pasted into Wikipedia, and verifiabillity doesn't guarantee inclusion. --Animalparty! (talk) 07:26, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added an entire section that is not duplicated on Rob Redding that deals directly with the sites influence. We did have many of the things from the Rob Redding page but that stuff got deleted. What I am at a loss for here is how some want a redirect for Redding but Matt Drudge and his Drudge Report are also repetitive. We really need to stop saying that black people are not worth such repetition. Said differently, there will always be overlap here but that does not mean Redding's site informaton should be marginalized to his wiki???

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:21, 9 April 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.