Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Triangulation (podcast)

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 delete. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:53, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Triangulation (podcast)

Doesn't seem notable. Delete. Catamorphism 02:34, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep. I created the article. It may not seem notable because the podcast was just created today, but if you check the page history for Triangulation (disambiguation), a link was already present before I created the article. As the technology emerges, it may become of more significance, and my intention is to provide as much relevent information as possible. If you check my user history, please note that I do not have a pattern of bad behavior. Runnerupnj 03:11, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

• Strong delete if it was just created today. Notability is inherently impossible. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:42, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia writes backwards, not forwards in time. Articles are here for subjects that have demonstrated their significance, not for subjects that may be significant in the future. When this podcast is famous, an article can and should be written! Ziggurat 03:59, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Just for comparison, what if it were a musical album that was released by a major band today? Certainly the association with the major band would make it potentially useful. What if it were a new show premiered on a major television network? Would that not then justify a new Wiki article? Runnerupnj 05:23, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Runnerupnj, that's irrelevant. This isn't an album by a major band. It's not a TV show that will be watched by many people. It's a podcast. Catamorphism 05:43, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Following your argument, should we also nominate for deletion Laporte's other podcast Inside the Net, along with other podcasts such as The Overnightscape, The Dawn and Drew Show, and Catholic Insider? And what about other media such as the book How to Good-Bye Depression, which, as I mentioned below, was nominated twice for deletion and retained both times? Or what about a movie such as Ensign Pulver, which seems to be notable only because it was a sequel to a more popular film? It doesn't seem clear to me why individual episodes of The Simpsons can have entries while a popular (even on its first day) podcast cannot. It is not clear what is defined as notable and what is defined as not notable. Runnerupnj 06:02, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
        • Podcasts that are notable should be kept. There are probably a lot of podcast articles here that should be deleted. You can nominate them for deletion if you'd like to spend the time on that. However, the existence of other inappropriate articles on Wikipedia doesn't make your article appropriate. Notability or lack thereof is defined by consensus, and so far, the consensus is overwhelmingly that this is non-encyclopedic. Catamorphism 06:06, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
          • "Notability or lack thereof is defined by consensus" -- I understand this, but I do feel compelled to put up a spirited defense. I didn't have any interest in starting this article, but someone had already created a link to the Triangulation website over at the Triangulation (disambiguation) page. Should that entry be stricken as well? At the same time, I would like to site WP:FAQ which states "Most people dislike stubs, even though they are probably a necessary evil. Many excellent articles started out as short stubs, thus existing stubs should be expanded into proper articles." Is there anything I can do to meet your criteria for making the entry more WikiWorthy? I would surely like to retain the article on some level, because more information is better than less, and because when visitors come looking for information in a week or two, there should be something rather than nothing. And for the record, I would not delete for the Simpsons episode articles for deletion because (a) like I said, more information is better than less and (b) such a motion would almost surely fail not because the episode is more worthy than this podcast but rather because the supporters of The Simpsons -- of which I myself am a fan -- would defend it with such overwhelming vigor that my vote would get hammered. Runnerupnj 06:20, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as non-noteworthy, borders on vanity. Ifnord 04:10, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Well it's not advertising or vanity, in as far as that I am not involved with the podcast nor do I have any connection (personal, professional, or otherwise) with the people involved. As for non-notable, I remember that How to Good-Bye Depression was nominated not once but twice for deletion and yet was voted to be retained both times. If sufficient justification was found for a book like that, then certainly I would assume that one can be found for a podcast with an association to three major tech figures (the first podcast includes Lawrence Lessig). Before posting this reply to your comment, I reviewed WP:FAQ and WP:NOT, and I still think there is sufficient justification to retain the article. Runnerupnj 05:23, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn podcast, which in my view is practically a redundancy. Eusebeus 08:22, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This could be mentioned in a sentence on the pages of the two panel members, Leo Laporte and John C. Dvorak. At the moment it does not warrant it's own wikipedia article. Movementarian 11:13, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - this podcast may well become widely known and socially significant one day, and at that point it would not be unreasonable to create a Wikipedia entry for it, but that time has not yet come. Tim Pierce 22:14, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• keep - What is the downside for having an article? If Dvorak and the other panelists are notable, then surely a joint venture merits an article of its own? -- Geo Swan 23:18, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • The downside is that every other of thousands of other people in the world who want to advertise their podcast can point at this one and say if their one-day-old podcast can be kept, why can't mine? User:Zoe|^(talk) 04:37, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - I agree with Tim Pierce, it may become notable one day, and merit its own article at that time. I am a podcaster too (as are 10,000 other people) and would have articles on no more than a dozen individual podcasts (ones that are historically important - a show that 'just' started yesterday hardly fits that description, even if Laporte and Dvorak are in it). JanesDaddy 23:55, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with This Week in Tech until notability is established. --Randy 22:44, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delay judgement - Don't underestimate the importance of Leo Laporte and John C. Dvorak in the podcasting world. They are huge. Their current podcast, this Week in Tech, is consistently ranked in the Top 5 on iTMS. And this idea for the new podcast sounds really good, so you may end up deleting this page only to need to recreate it in a few weeks. --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 16:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. iTunes is not the only barometer of popularity (in fact, it's quite flawed these days), and TWiT is not Triangulation. I still say Delete until notability is established. JanesDaddy 18:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment. A Podcast Alley search shows No Result, and Laporte's own web site doesn't mention Triangulation. If you follow the link at the end of the article, it points to a TWiT page that includes this text "Here's a new show we're trying out. As yet there's no feed, it's just a direct download from this site, but we'd like your opinion. If there's interest we'll make more." I'd say that proves it's NN. It's not even a REAL podcast! JanesDaddy 03:37, 14 December 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.