Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daily Source Code

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 Marskell 09:32, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Daily Source Code

Vanity/Not notable Skrewler 03:08, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Per nomination. --Timecop 03:27, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. -- Femmina 05:06, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Notable google presence [1]. Dottore So 08:18, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The Daily Source Code is one of the most popular podcasts in the world, made by "the father of podcasting", former MTV VJ Adam Curry. As I understand it, the show has hundreds of thousands of listeners (the files have to be served by four load-balanced high-bandwidth servers). Most podcasts are tiny and articles about them would amount to vanity, but this one does not. Haakon 08:22, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Dottoreso and Haakon. DVD+ R/W 08:42, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable podcast. 400,000 results on Google for Daily Source Code see [2]. Capitalistroadster 10:30, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as notable. Kudos to Dottore So and Capitalistroadster for providing links, scowls to Haakon for making claims without citing sources. But blogs always have lots of google hits, they're incestuous, so lets look a bit harder, ok? Alexa is average at 180K, there is nothing in the first five pages of the search I did to make a splash, with similarly uninspring results with Dottore So's slightly different search. So I'd be saying "delete" but Google news saves the day, showing it mentioned in a few places with some credibility. Whew! - brenneman^(t)(c) 10:43, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for researching for me ;-) My only claim, though, was "as I understand it". Haakon 11:40, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Bah! I'm such an easy mark. I won't be fooled into doing your dirty work for you again... today... on this afd...
brenneman^(t)(c) 11:46, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

• Comment this nomination appears to be part of a GNAA troll campaign. Note that this does not mean the article should be kept, but is merely something to bear in mind before casting a vote. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 13:03, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
  • What! But those jolly fellows have never led us astray before, why shouldn't we trust them now?
    brenneman^(t)(c) 13:19, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
  • At risk of violating WP:BEANS, if the GNAA wants to troll WP by cleaning out vanity articles in an orderly way according to policy, they're free to do so. I haven't seen any disruption caused by these AFDs; consensus has been clear in almost every case. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 13:44, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep, may be the best-known podcast in existence with thousands of listeners. Note: I briefly served with Adam Curry, the creator of this podcast, on a technical advisory board. But I don't think that colors my opinion here. Rcade
  • Not to cast aspersions, but this isn't much more good than "NN D". How do we WP:V that it has thousands of listeners? We should all get into the habit of, whenever making any factual claim on AfD, cite our sources. - brenneman^(t)(c) 04:52, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
    • See the history of podcasting and you will see how heavily this podcast figures into that. That will at least prove how well-known it is, even if it doesn't have numbers regarding listeners. Jacqui^★ 19:58, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Google hits and the fact that Adam Curry is the father of podcasting. Jacqui^★ 15:36, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - obviously. Balcer 00:01, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. chocolateboy 13:06, 22 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.