Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MuggleCast
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You have new messages (last change).
- 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. brenneman(t)(c) 02:34, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] MuggleCast aka Mugglecast
- Keep Yes it speaks for itself, MuggleCast has about 70,000 listeners, has recieved media coverage, and has even been highlighted as a leading podcast by an itunes newsletter, oh and #1 on most podcast directories doesn't hurt.Sejo
Speaks for itself; yet another non-notable site that verges on being speedy deletion. Deltabeignet 01:45, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Speedy deleteMerge and redirect to MuggleNet.--Kross | Talk 01:49, 9 November 2005 (UTC)Speedy Delete That NN article isn't worth the paper it isn't written on. Cynicism addict 02:22, 9 November 2005 (UTC) and Comment There are two of these. MuggleCast and Mugglecast Cynicism addict 02:51, 9 November 2005 (UTC)Having read Mgm's comments and reconsidering my vote, I change my vote to Keep Cynicism addict 23:34, 9 November 2005 (UTC)Speedy Delete You barely beat me to the edit.Keep After viewing the latest news, I'm for a keep. Krzypntbllr 02:29, 9 November 2005 (UTC)Delete per nomination. No content.Now redirected to page with information, however I'm unsure of notability; changing vote to weak delete. 70.27.59.200 03:17, 9 November 2005 (UTC)Speedy delete, db-empty. Keep.PJM 03:42, 9 November 2005 (UTC)- Didn't nominate as I was welcoming one of it's major contributors. Some of the above entries veer further from WP:CIVIL than is helpful. There is no reason we can't delete this nicely. Oh, uh, and, Delete - brenneman(t)(c) 04:15, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
- Keep or merge into MuggleNet.com or MuggleNet (whichever exists) or at the very least redirect. This is podcast of one of the biggest Harry Potter news- and fansites. Its founder was personally invited to interview J.K. Rowling for the release of book 6. A merge sounds like a reasonable thing to me. Certainly not a speedy. - Mgm|(talk) 10:23, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
- Comment, also MuggleNet states: "After two days online, MuggleCast became the number six most downloaded podcast on the United States iTunes list of most popular podcasts and downloads and, on August 14, it reached the number one position." which in my eyes, makes it not just another podcast, but a relevant one that deserves coverage. - Mgm|(talk) 10:28, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: I moved it back to MuggleCast which is the official and correct spelling and informed previous voters of my new comments. - Mgm|(talk) 10:34, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
- More information at User talk:Mamatha Challa following a request by brenneman including a #1 spot on iTunes with it's initial release and 70,000 subscribers, mention by the CEO of iTunes in their newsletter this week. MuggleNet itself has an Alexa ranking of 2,520. - Mgm|(talk) 10:47, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
- Why do you guys want to delete this? I don't get it. Kneazlegirl 12:45, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
- Keep pending verification of notablility per itunes Rich Farmbrough 13:22, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
- Keep appears notable.--Nicodemus75 13:38, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Good article. Save AfD for the crap. Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 13:57, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
- Delete podcruft. Sounds like a biggish fish in a very small pond. Maybe merge with some other potter fancruft? Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 13:58, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
- Comment Please don't merge this into Mugglenet. There is enough information about this subject there already, and we don't want the article to get too long. Cmouse 16:06, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
- Keep any verifiable content in this page. Trollderella 17:20, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete or merge as two-sentence item in Mugglenet. Not yet notable. --William Pietri 18:13, 9 November 2005 (UTC)- Merge. From subsequent discussion it sounds like this isn't just a vanity article, but when trimmed to the independently verifiable material, it seems better as part of MuggleNet. --William Pietri 17:49, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- Delete or redirect to MuggleNet. Andrew Levine 19:36, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
- Contributor Response: I just realized I could edit this, and I thought I would just inform you guys, if you didn't know, that I posted a good amount of notability proof on the Discussion board of this article. If you want, I'll repost it here. Thank you! :) Mamatha Challa 03:38, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
- Maybe I'm a little slow, but I looked for Mamatha Challa's comments on the MuggleCast and MuggleNet entries. Then I found them on this very talk page. --William Pietri 06:35, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
- Delete vanity CDC (talk) 22:52, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
- Weak Keep and a strong suggestion to cut the article in half and remove the vanity. Just a suggestion - if that happens, I'll change my vote. Much of this material is already covered in the MuggleNet article. Cmouse 04:18, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
- Keep Although I think it ought to be shortened a little. Spiritual 17:24, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
- Keep and rewrite. Notable program on podcasts. Jtmichcock 12:55, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
- Comment If this is voted as Keep I volunteer to rewrite; it does need fixing. I'm not sure if this will influence any votes, but it's worth a shot. Jtmichcock 13:33, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
- Update: MuggleCast has received a highly visible place in the iTunes podcast directory (see here). - Mgm|(talk) 12:41, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- Thank you, I was just about to post that! Not to mention that even iTunes finds it QUITE notable. Mamatha Challa 17:06, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- Comment Here's a rather lengthy New York Post article on Mugglenet from yesterday's paper. Jtmichcock 01:51, 17 November 2005 (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.