Talk:Mike Duncan (podcaster)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mike Duncan (podcaster). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131008102340/http://www.podcastsquared.com/2012/05/08/podcast-squared-97-the-fall-decline-of-a-podcast/ to http://www.podcastsquared.com/2012/05/08/podcast-squared-97-the-fall-decline-of-a-podcast/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:35, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Is his book notable enough for its own article?

It's out and was listed on the NYT Bestseller List at least once. Does that meet notability criteria? Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:07, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Notability? I don't know. Excellence? According to many. But even if both were true, would an article be productive or valuable? What??...Say "good book!" then recap Roman history yet again?
--2602:306:CFCE:1EE0:1005:EB11:5070:EE3C (talk) 16:33, 9 January 2018 (UTC)Doug Bashford

Podcast merge proposal

I think it's clear from his books to his podcasts there's enough press coverage to satisfy GNG for Duncan, but I'm not sure that his individual podcasts are notable (or can/should stand alone.) As such I'm proposing (at least) merging Revolutions (podcast) into this article. At best, there's some minor coverage such as [1][2], but that's not enough to build a full article about. Meanwhile much more coverage that's in-depth focuses on Duncan himself, e.g. [3] As such, I think consolidating info makes the most sense and would result in a single, stronger article. Thoughts? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 18:06, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

• I agree, David Fuchs. The podcast is little more than a table of contents with a mention or two. Merge it. 2600:6C58:607F:F8F1:303F:19AB:BD33:D584 (talk) 04:18, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm going to merge the two articles. If there are any objections go ahead and revert my edits. @David Fuchs: TipsyElephant (talk) 16:46, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Lead

I have restored the removal of most content from the LEAD. I certainly understand the issues in terms of tone presented, but I also think it does serve as a summary/introduction to the rest of the article per MOS:INTRO. I don't think its complete removal is the best way to handle issues there. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:37, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree with your revert. I don't think that the {{Cleanup}} tag is even needed, especially if it's based on a mistaken view that the page has been edited by the subject. --Meanderingbartender (talk) 19:16, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Find alternate citation (Google Podcasts Turndown)

Citation [37] no longer works because Google Podcasts has been turned down. 206.55.183.154 (talk) 13:55, 15 April 2024 (UTC)