Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ifanboy

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. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 15:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ifanboy

In their own words, "culturally irrelevant since 2000". Read the article and decide for yourself. Danny Lilithborne 21:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

This being the first time that I do this, I'm not entirely sure how to defend my having put up an entry for iFanboy. It's a site I've read since it's inception and with more and more people downloading their weekly podcast and following their exploits at the movies and at comic-cons. I think that regardless of their joking cultural irrelevance, their relevance to is on the rise, esp. with those who read comic books and listen to discussion podcasts. They were one of the 9 podcasts invited to this year's San Diego Comic-Con and I think that's just another example that speaks to their relevance to comic book audiences at large. don't delete.Killbot24

• Delete. Article is unsourced and does little besides discussing the creators and their personalities. Besides, a Google search returns only 144 unique hits. tmopkisn ^tlka 23:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

• How is this any different than other podcast entries like Buzz Out Loud[1] or the similar podcast like Fanboy Radio[2], if this gets deleted, shouldn't the others?. Plus iFanboy is mentioned on another wikipage for Fanboy[3]. Also, they're in the top 100 podcasts for the Arts category in iTunes, higher than any other comics podcast. Plus I think that "culturally irrelevant since 2000" is meant to be a joke. I say don't delete.--Crujones13 19:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, for starters, "Buzz Out Loud" gets 364,000 Google hits, and is a podcast run by a very popular internet news site. Even Fanboy radio gets 60,000 or so hits. To put it simply, both of those podcasts are alot more notable then the one in question. If it's in the top 100 arts podcasts, well then good for it, but how many arts podcasts are there total? 120? 200? You have to put things in perspective, maybe when this article is #5 in the arts podcasts it will deserve an article, but until then it's just not notable enough. Oh, and yeah, I'm pretty sure that's a joke to, but in the grand scheme of things I don't think it really matters. tmopkisn ^tlka 21:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I definitely get your point about relevance, but the fact is, this podcast is on the rise. Doing a google search yields about 10k worth of hits, which isn't as much as "Fanboy Radio," but they seem to only have about 140 or so more unique hits. And they've only been casting since like this winter where Fanboy Radio's been around for years. Also, there is over 6800 podcasts under the "arts" category on iTunes, being int the top 100 is hardly insignificant.--Crujones13 22:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 15:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Keep if it is notable. I think the statement about being culturally irrelevant is irrelevant to whether or not this should be deleted. Whether or not it is notable should be discussed. --HResearcher 09:44, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Alexa rank is not quite two million. Google returns 96 unique hits, 947 total, apparently mainly from forums. Doesn't look notable. Fan-1967 16:07, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unverifiable through reliable sources. -- Dragonfiend 06:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep -- I've been listening to this show for almost a year now and I never visit their website (I'm lazy). From what they say on the show most of their audience is like me - so unique website hits is, to me, an irrelevant statistic. This show is all over iTunes.--BatFan77 16:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
• KEEP -- Don't let a transforming medium like the wiki be held hostage to archaic standards that define traditional media. Fact is, these guys fill a niche in a way that no one else does. iFanboy is notable in that they have been blogging since it was still called a weblog, they have been podcasting for a time that has seen an untold number appear and disappear, and they have quietly begun doing video work - without self aggrandisement. Their audience is the measure of how notable they are.

--Angryjonny 14:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, per Fan-1967 and Dragonfiend. User:Angr 08:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Angr. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete for failing WP:WEB: "The article itself must provide proof that its subject meets one of these criteria via inlined links or a "Reference" or "External link" section.". Sandstein 16:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Links to ifanboy appearing in external media are in the External Link section for all to see.--BatFan77 17:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• KEEP There's no way to link to it, but if you go to iTunes, the most popular way to browse podcasts, and type in the terms "comic book," "comic books," or "comics" ifanboy shows up as the most popular/relevant podcast almost every time. Niche communities like comic book readers are going to be ones who determine the future of things like the podcasting medium, and ifanboy is right at the top of the heap among comic book podcasters.-- Quint27
• Dlt fails WP:WEB. ~ trialsanderrors 08:27, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. Fails WP:WEB. Smells like vanity. Discount sock/meat puppets. Ifnord 23:30, 13 August 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.