- 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter123 (pronounce) 20:17, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
- John Iadarola (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article fails WP:GNG. No apparent secondary source coverage of subject, except as tangential coverage of another story, and almost all of the information is self reported (WP:SPIP), and thus not independent of the subject. Peregrine981 (talk) 16:36, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
- Keep This case is going to involve WP:NWEB. From what I can see, The Young Turks, both as an individual show and as a youtube based "network" are receiving huge viewership numbers. That certainly makes their content relevant due to the sheer reach. We are talking 1.5 million views a day, over 2 billion total views. Huffington Post calls it the "biggest online news network." The content is largely self-important pundits talking about political news. Iadarola is listed as their #3 on-camera talent after Cenk Uygur and Ana Kasparian on the primary show and he hosts secondary content on the network. I don't think we can regard that as inherited relevance, there are a lot of people listening to what this guy has to say every day. With that much exposure, its a responsibility of wikipedia to try to explain who this guy is. The digiday source I added to the article credits him with boosting the Think Tank show to number two on the network. That's an individual accomplishment. We certainly wouldn't consider deleting Glenn Beck who is also a self-important pundit distributed on an internet based network, yet his audience is only around 300,000 a day (compared to 800,000 or more subscribers of Iadarola's Think Tank alone). All of these self-important pundits essentially are creating their own stories about themselves to fill in their background and why they are important to listen to. These folks are professionals at social media, there is a lot of content generated by them or their PR people about them (somehow I doubt he has "people"). Most of the sources do circle back to what Iadarola said "on the air." With the immense audience also comes a lot of reposting of his quotes, mostly in video form--that appears to be a lot of the sources in the current article.[1] [2] Thats not just by one man bloggers. Like Beck and other pundits, he also generates a lot of criticism of his opinions. [3] It also shows he has a large following, making him relevant. As the Burnt Orange report interview points out, TYT is alternative to conventional media. Thus conventional media is going to be less likely to build up the talent on their competition. Thus their coverage is going to be more likely from other alternative media in alternative forms like youtube videos. Where do the secondary sources about all of these personalities go to get information about the subject? A lot of them start with interviewing the subject themselves, which by the way is not too different from most news stories. Most non-controversial biographical stories start with "Who are you?" and stenography until there is a reason to doubt what they are saying, most of those facts are not checked out by any reporters, New York Times on down. I've found sources that are essentially third party interviews of Iadarola individually and the TYT cast as a group. The Kickass Politics group interview is reposted on a lot of other sites. I've added the Burnt Orange and Charlatan independent interviews of him to the article. [4] You can nit pick on the content of the article and delete certain statements you don't believe are true, but as a whole, on WP:GNG grounds alone the article absolutely should stand. Trackinfo (talk) 22:57, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
- comment: fair enough. You've convinced me, along with those couple of interviews that it should stand with perhaps some checking for verifiability and notability of content. thanks.Peregrine981 (talk) 09:05, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
- 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.