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. As King of Hearts has pointed out, many of the comments (on both sides) are just VAGUEWAVES. When those are discounted, the few valid comments left clearly show a consensus to delete. JBW (talk) 19:49, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Equity Mates Media (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lacks reliable sources to establish notability. Tulkijasi (talk) 10:29, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Tulkijasi (talk) 10:29, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per indepth coverage available in Business Insider, The Sydney Morning Herald and other notable publications. JaredDaEconomist (talk) 11:01, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:43, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:43, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Advertisement. No indication of notability. fails WP:GNG. GermanKity (talk) 12:39, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per notability. Only one article is actually about them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FiddleheadLady (talk • contribs) 20:07, July 5, 2021 (UTC)
• Keep Passes GNG as multiple sources are available for this podcast network like [1], [2], [3], [4], [5] etc. DmitriRomanovJr (talk) 05:06, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per above notable podcast network, qualifies GNG. Larryeos (talk) 13:32, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Wikipedia:Spam. Podcasts for references about a podcast. Fails GNG by a long shot. — Ched (talk) 10:25, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This reads like spam. I don't see the notability established by the sources provided. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 10:33, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep In principle, this seems like somewhere WP:NCORP is meant to apply. I don't know Australian sources, but [6][7] seem like RS. Seems like it passes NCORP at a skim? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:33, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The SMH source PR links to is an INTERVIEW; there's very little content there that could be considered secondary, thus it doesn't help it meet the NCORP requirements. I can't see the AFR source (it's behind a paywall), but nothing else I can find would meet the NCORP requirements, so in my view this is an NCORP fail. I'll add that, it if is found to be notable, it need a thorough rewrite, because it does indeed read like promotional spam. Girth Summit _(blether) 11:54, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  While I'm here, I'll comment on some of the other sources. Business Insider, per WP:BI, is of dubious reliability and many editors agree that it should not be used to establish notability. The Morning Star source is another interview, with very little secondary coverage. The link to Lifehacker is actually highlighted in red by a script for me as a generally unreliable source. The Mumbrella source is literally a republished press release. None of the sources I am able to review ticks all of the necessary boxes: secondary, independent, reliable, and giving the subject substantial coverage. Girth Summit _(blether) 12:09, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - promotional article that lacks coverage in secondary sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:12, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Thanks King of Hearts, for the hint about stopping the browser - that worked for me. The AFR source is another INTERVIEW. It contains just two or three assertions of fact about the subject in the voice of the author, everything else is coming from one of the founders in the form of a quote. It doesn't change my mind that the sourcing, overall, fails to demonstrate notability. Girth Summit _(blether) 13:43, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: This page lacks substantial coverage directly detailing from reliable sources independent of the subject. I tend to agree with User:Girth Summit's analysis of sources. Virtually everything asserted in the article ultimately comes from routine business news featuring the podcast creators themselves. First-time page creator Larryeos appears in this process to assert keep, but doesn't give us a page creator's rationale or any additional sources around which to base consensus. BusterD (talk) 18:39, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete My assessment of the sources is essentially the same as Summit's assessment, but I wrote it out anyway. The Sydney Morning Herald and The Morning Star are WP:INTERVIEW sources so they are primary not secondary. The Lifehacker article only contains a passing mention of the subject. The Mumbrella article is a press release from Equity Mates Media and is therefore a primary source. The Business Insider article probably doesn’t contribute to notability because of its reliability WP:BI, but even if it did most of the article is an WP:INTERVIEW so it’s a primary source. I’m unable to find any in-depth sources online. TipsyElephant (talk) 17:50, 30 July 2021 (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.