Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/75 minutes

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 of the debate was keep (no consensus). Wisewaif pointed out a fairly high ranking among the Yahoo! podcast list, although 75 minutes had fallen to 61st place when I checked the link out. I am concerned with sockpuppeteering and/or meatpuppeteering here, but ultimately some of the "keep" voters have presented reasonable arguments for this podcast's notability. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:14, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 75 minutes

Podcast with no apparent notability. Stifle 08:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Why delete? This seems to be a quality podcast about independant music, which is always welecome. These non-RIAA artists don't get any promotion and its nice to have a podcast like this that lets people discover new things. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.175.220.45 (talk • contribs). Proto t c 10:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete This is my first time hearing about this and I'm a pretty hardcore 'cast fan. This is a relatively insignificant 'cast and unless we Wikipedian brothers start listing every other beginner 'cast, I tag my vote as a strong delete. Anagram 20:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • nb - this vote was changed to a 'keep' by User:65.175.220.45. Changed back. Proto t c 10:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination, podcruft. Individual podcasts will never be notable unless Christian Slater starts one. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 09:01, Jan. 20, 2006
• Delete as non-notable podcast. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-20 10:11Z
• No notability!?!? Why, it's 25% better than 60 Minutes. GWO
• Delete per Christian Slater and Freakofnurture. --Dragonfiend 15:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as podcruft. Eusebeus 20:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete. I think podcasts can be here if they can establish that they have a nationwide notability somewhere, within the article. I can think of a handful that would certainly qualify. This one, however, does not, and unless someone can assert its notability it should be deleted. Oh, and very funny, GWO. Grandmasterka 00:55, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, notable, one of the more widely-listened internet radio programs. Features interviews with notable artists. --Bk0 (Talk) 03:10, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, Top 60 rated and listened to podcasts at *Yahoo Podcasts. Noted by Yahoo by popularity: *Yahoo. By feed statistics, one of the Top 100 podcasts listed by Feedburner. Global audience of thousands. Most listened to, by download statistics, in 1. The U.S. 2. China 3. EU 4. Canada 5. Australia. Featured in popular music blogs such as Gapers Block, and other music blogs. As said before, is 25% better than 60 MInutes, and as a bonus, no Andy Rooney. The kicker, unfortunately, is that it has 5% less proof than Absolut Vodka. --wisewaif (Talk) 03:39, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per wisewaif, but with a caveat. There is no Arbitron or Alexa for podcasts so far, and it would be rather difficult to build one. If Yahoo Podcasts isn't one of the big fish in the pond, asserting that something is notable for appearing on Yahoo's list doesn't necessarily mean anything. That said, it is Yahoo, and on the scale of big fish overall they're a basking shark, so I'm willing to give this list the benefit of the doubt. I think a combined discussion on the issue of podcasts is in order, especially after the Wehatetech fiasco. Haikupoet 04:59, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete If there is even confusion about the potential notability of something, it's not notable. Being a big fish in a small pond is no excuse. Dbchip 08:04, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

What? If podcasting is notable (clearly, given the size of the article) then the "small pond" is notable, therefore being a "big fish" in it is more than adequate justification for an article. I think wisewaif has given sufficient evidence that 75 Minutes is among the top English-language podcasts, as far as it can be determined. --Bk0 (Talk) 12:23, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep best podcast/radio program available--Schwab002 09:54, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  • This vote is this user's only edit. --Hosterweis 02:39, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - As noted by wisewaif the show is widely listened to. --Metrodus 14:40, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  • This vote was this user's first edit out of two. --Hosterweis 02:39, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep "If there is even confusion about the potential notability of something, it's not notable." that makes no sense, a complete logical fallacy. how many people outside the u.s. have heard of Harper Lee? she wrote one novel in her entire career, and released it at the perfect time. point being, many (who never read the book in high school) would question the potential notability. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dreamer.redeemer (talk • contribs) .
• Keep Definitely notable. Determining the notability of podcasts is hard though, even harder than notability for musical artists. Gaining nationwide (or rather: global) notability isn't really an important thing for a podcast that focusses on music that is more or less underground. I see 75 Minutes as more than just a radioshow: it has a sense of community that reaches out to underground musical scenes in all parts of the world. The show is notable not so much for the wide variety of listeners, but mainly for the wide scope of scenes and genres it covers. Rather than marking this for deletion, an overall discussion (as suggested above) on the notability of podcasts is in order. To make a comparison with musical notability again: my stance would be that articles are okay as long as they are objective. Ie: "This band consists of four members" is okay. "This band is awesome!!1lol" is not. PoofBird 18:29, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Seems like a reasonable explanation of what the site in question is all about; "notoriety" is awfully subjective, don't you think? Maniaclives 14:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I just wanted to point out that this podcast has released 35 shows (25 weekly + 10 bi-weekly) and it has very high production values. Furthermore, the program is 100% not-for-profit, so how could the article in question be an advertisement? Have any of the delete voters actually listened to the show before knee-jerk voting against it? It is a top-notch podcast and there is no reason it shouldn't be represented on wikipedia. Maniaclives 17:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
    • "How could the article in question be an advertisement?" — it doesn't have to be for-profit to be an advertisement; it's an effort to gain listeners, and thus, an advertisement. --Hosterweis 23:46, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete, nn podcruft with what looks like an invasion of sock puppets voting keep. incog 01:21, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete, This site is supposed to have decent information, no jokes. --blackman 02:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Alexa ranking of 1,316,523 - just another podcast taking up space on the wikipedia. non-notable advertisement. -- Hosterweis 02:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Alexa?! You're kidding, right? --Bk0 (Talk) 02:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Alexa is used as a metric for popularity in nearly every AfD. There's no need to stop using it now just because you disagree with it. --dj28 02:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Alexa isn't too useful for podcasts -- podcasts use different distribution mechanisms from webpages, so a different metric has to be used. I don't think that metric exists yet, so some more ad hoc intermediate metric needs to be created. In the meantime, I would think Yahoo Top 100 is as good a system as there is at the moment. Like I said above, I think a centralized discussion on the issue is in order. Haikupoet 23:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Non-notable. Further, some of the accounts voting to keep look suspiciously like sockpuppets. --dj28 02:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Non-notable. Determining the popularity of a podcast is hard because nobody actually listen to them. -- Femmina 02:44, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Seems to me to be a pretty important podcast. And keep in mind Alexa rankings aren't a good way to get an idea of a podcast's notability, because Alexa rankings are for the world wide web and podcasts generally exist outside of the world wide web in services such as iTMS or RSS. Cyde Weys 05:32, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Do you really believe this podcast is important? Do you actually use it? Or you just find out about its existence after it reached the articles for deletion? --blackman 15:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, podcruft. Rhobite 15:49, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Rhobite. (Just discovered the War on Blogs and it's already pissing me off.) Rogue 9 18:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, notable, encyclopedic ➥the Epopt 23:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Advertisement, fails WP:WEB, and sockpuppetry and vote vandalism always makes me think that the article should go. Proto t c 10:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Thousands-wide as an audience? When it hits 50,000, tell me. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 00:12, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Could you point me to the policy page that states that 50,000 is the accepted standard for notability? Thanks. --Bk0 (Talk) 00:17, 26 January 2006 (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.