Deletion of Sawbones (podcast)

Comment: The majority of references are from Maximum Fun are link to their podcasts. These are primary sources and not a good source for demonstrating where the subject passes 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Perhaps you could clarify exactly what is reading like an advertisement? Then we can just clean it up. It seems to be written pretty neutrally when I read it. When I see WP:PAID, I also usually think paid contributors as well, so is there a particular COI you think needs disclosing? If it's that, that wouldnt be grounds for deletion, draftification at worst, but again, as an AfC reviewer, we're usually only checking for a neutral presentation of the facts, and this seems fairly neutral to me. I'm not seeing any overly flowery language like, "This great podcast will engross you as it teaches you about such and such..." Maybe ditch the paragraph that talks about "over 300 episodes"? If the concern is over the use of primary sources, these seem to be used in a way to simply states facts about the show or book, which would be valid under  #3. Those aren't needed to establish notability, since it has been covered in the other references and the {{tl|refideas}} listed on the Talk page. The article could surely be improved, but that is not grounds for deletion, as summed up nicely in  is not cleanup (not citing a guideline, just a POV, nobody , plz
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:PRIMARY||WP:AFD||WP:BITE)

Comment: Article needs some clean-up by removing anything promotional. Other than that, it's good enough to pass  per reasons and reliable sources indicated above
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)