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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn as AfD was created in error. (non-admin closure) – NJD-DE (talk) 00:50, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Daily Wire[edit]

The Daily Wire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

I meant to open an AfD for Candace (show) not The Daily Wire. I accidentally clicked on a wikilink to The Daily Wire beforehand or had multiple tabs open. I'm not sure what happened, but I'm asking for assistance in remedying this huge mistake at the help desk. Sorry for any disruption in editing. TipsyElephant (talk) 00:28, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I previously opened a WP:PROD and I am still concerned about the notability of this topic. I am not suggesting that Candace Owens or The Daily Wire are not notable, but that this show is not notable as an independent subject and does not WP:INHERIT notability from its host, network, or guests. The current sourcing is very poor in regards to coverage related to the show specifically. Most of the sources are only WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS of the show and instead are heavily focused on Candance Owens, The Daily Wire, or Donald Trump. For example, the Forbes article only contains one sentence that mentions the show. Most of the sources don't mention the show at all. For instance, the New York Daily News, Newsweek, CNN, and The Washington Examiner sources all discuss related topics such as Candace Owens, The Daily Wire, and Trump but never even mention a show or podcast let alone provide in depth coverage of the show. Sources like the first and second references from The Hill as well as the Black Enterprise are largely WP:INTERVIEW content, which means that they are primary or not independent of the subject.

The reliability of the current sources is also quite concerning. I would expect to see a few sources that have made it to WP:RSP as "generally reliable" or a few sources that are not on RSP but appear reliable. However, the reliability of The Washington Examiner, WP:NEWSWEEK, and WP:FORBESCON are all in question at RSP and as such likely do not contribute to notability even if they did mention the show. The reliability of OutKick and Black Enterprise have not been evaluated at RSP/RSN as far as I can tell. For OutKick, I can't find anything about an editorial board, mission statement, or even a list of staff and the parent company is simply OutKick Media. The site is at the very least a clearly partisan source and the author of this particular article is included on the site's list of "contributors", which is often mentioned at WP:RSP as potentially unreliable (WP:CONTRIBUTOR is relevant). The Black Enterprise source at least has an about page and a management staff page, however, I don't see "Cedric 'Big Ced' Thornton" listed as a member of the staff. The New York Daily News is at least listed at RSP as "generally reliable", but even that entry notes that editors "question the accuracy of its tabloid-style headlines" and the title in question is "Cardi B and Candace Owens threaten to sue each other in epic Twitter battle".

I also believe that WP:NOTNEWS is extremely pertinent. When looking for sources I find quite a few news stories about Trump and his stance on the covid-19 vaccine rather than discussion about what the show is, common topics of the show, how long an average episode is, how many episodes are there, what platforms is it available on, what are similar or related shows, or a review of the show as a whole. While reading the current sources it's unclear whether this is a podcast, radio show, television show, or only a youtube channel. Based on my searches for additional sources it appears that Trump's views on vaccines is more notable than this show. The whole interaction between Candace and Cardi B sounds like WP:NOTGOSSIP. I also think WP:ROUTINE is relevant considering the few sources that do discuss the show are mostly just announcing that the start of the show and Candace's move to The Daily Wire.

There was a merge discussion that ended in no consensus with very little evidence suggesting that the show is independently notable. I believe this topic is more suited for a section at both the articles for Candace Owens and The Daily Wire rather than an independent page. There has also been some discussion on the talk page regarding whether the content could be merged to Candace Owens or The Daily Wire. If any of the content is preserved I would suggest merging it to Candace Owens because the focus of the article is supposed to be on a show that she hosts and, given the name of the show, couldn't exist without her as the host. Whereas, The Daily Wire is the production company and most of the time news coverage of shows like this barely mention the production company, but The Daily Wire probably should have an entry for the show as well. TipsyElephant (talk) 00:22, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 00:22, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 00:22, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 00:22, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 00:22, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:25, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:25, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:25, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:26, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:26, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:26, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:27, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:47, 7 February 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.