Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ExtraLife (2nd nomination)

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 Speedy Delete per CSD G4, although there are a lot of keeps, they are mostly by SPAs. Cbrown1023 01:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ExtraLife

ATTENTION! If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether a page or group of pages is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing! Note: Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username|UTC timestamp [optional]}}

ExtraLife (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View log)

Already deleted once for being non-notable (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ExtraLife). Article recreated again with no outside sources given to prove notability. #224 on WebComic list. Article should be moved to Webcomic Wiki. Also note that the author's entry [1] was deleted for not being notable along with his other podcast "The Instance." [2] Ocatecir 19:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as recreated content. Consider salting also. Otto4711 20:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, as the comic most certainly rests as notable now. At it's previous deletion, the comic was much smaller (holding an Alexa rating of around 470,000), but has since grown to enjoy an extremely large reader base (they're current Alexa rank sits at around 35,000), and is pointed to often by other gaming sites, such as Joystiq. It certainly ranks as more notable than 90% of the things on the Wiki's list of webcomics. However, the article does need to be cleaned up and expanded. There is almost no info pertaining to the comic itself in the article. --Nmaster64 21:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Comparing an article to other articles that exist is not a valid argument against deletion per WP:ILIKEIT#What_about_article_x. If those articles are non-notable they will be deleted in time as well. Traffic is not a test for notability. Outside independent sources need to write about the subject in order to prove notability. - Ocatecir 21:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. Nothing that makes sense is a valid argument on Wikipedia for notability. Because userbase is totally negligible when talking about "notability"...I'd like to know where these outside independent sources are supposed to come from in the case of webcomics too, not exactly plentiful...Extra Life hits around gaming circles about as much as it can...[3] [4] [5] [6] Also, the site certainly passes the Search Engine Test, returning first on all major search engines for the terms "extra"+"life" and "extra life", which is a somewhat common phrase, especially in gaming circles. --Nmaster64 22:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete and salt as recreated content. Nothing substantial has changed since the first AfD; there are still no sources. Trebor 22:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete -- recreated content. bogdan 23:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Hmmm... When I looked at this article the first thing I thought to myself was "haven't I seen this somewhere before ?"... And sure enough, there are those comments about re-created content in the AfD debate. But let's focus on the facts: is the subject of the article notable, and is the article adequately referenced ? Notability is not, in my view, proven: it's hard to see how a listenership of just 15,000 can be regarded as significant - there are hospital radio stations with larger weekly audiences - and although it's claimed that the podcast is highly rated by Yahoo no evidence is presented to support this. On balance I feel this is a Delete. WMMartin 18:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Currently ExtraLife Radio is Yahoo Podcast's 32nd highest rated podcast [7][8], which most certainly is notable. This and other arguments here have me decided. Keep. --Twigge 08:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• It should be noted that it is the 32 most highly rated, which is entirely subjective and offers no indication of notability, not in the top 100 most highly popular podcasts, which would indicate listenership. Besides that, listing on a directory does not establish notability, per WP:WEB. - Ocatecir 09:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Currently the total number of podcast listeners is very small. The number of people who have even downloaded a single podcast is less than 6,000,000. The number of regular podcast listeners is probably a fourth of that. This means that with 15,000 listeners ExtraLife Radio captures approximately 1% of the total number of people listening to podcasts, a significant portion of the market. Considering the amount of growth the podcast has seen since this article was last deleted, I think it should be kept for the time being, assuming the show will maintain it's current rate of growth. I also feel that it satisfies the notability requirement based on Nmaster64 above links. The article needs a lot of cleanup, but it should not be deleted. 67.88.66.41 00:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment We should keep Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(web)#Podcasts in mind, particularly comments by Nifboy. - Ocatecir 08:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
• It should also be noted that the basis for most of the delete suggestions here is solely on the fact that this is recreated content. As this podcast and web comic have increased in popularity by a factor of ten since the original article was deleted, I think this is not a valid reason to delete the article. If it is decided that ExtraLife is still not notable enough to have an article about it, then so be it, but to suggest this article needs to be deleted simply because it is recreated content is not a valid reason. 67.88.66.41 16:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

It is, because popularity is not a criterion for inclusion. Had substantial sources been found in this time, then it could be reconsidered, but merely an expanded audience is insufficient. Trebor 17:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not saying that because the audience has expanded it should stay. I am saying that because the audience has expanded, deleting this article simply because it is recreated content would be a mistake. What might not have been notable could very well be considered notable now. If everything else were equal, and this article was recreated, I would say delete it strait away, but the podcast has grown dramatically since the article was originally deleted. To simply suggest this article should be deleted because it is recreated content is irresponsible. I am not sure what you mean by lack of substantial sources though, Nmaster64 listed multiple external references above. Those references combined with Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(web)#Podcasts Ocatecir linked to, in my mind establishes notability. 67.88.66.41 18:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• Not sure how you are taking Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(web)#Podcasts to establish notability. Did you read it? It shoots down the arguments you are making. Quote:

• Fair enough I read the article wrong. I still feel that the references cited establish notability though. If you disagree so be it, you are entitled to your opinion. My original statement stands though, to say that the article should be deleted simple because it has been recreated is poor logic. And the opinion that ExtraLife is not notable is obviously not unanimous. 67.88.66.41 20:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• It could be deleted as recreated content, as nothing very applicable to deletion has changed. But if you want to start from scratch, fine. There is still no evidence of notability; the links provided all give a trivial mention to the topic (in my eyes). Trebor 22:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• The comic was ranked 9th in an article about the top web comics [9]. This is an opinion piece, not based on votes or subscriptions or the likes. This comic is also regularly featured on Joystiq.com's Weekly Comic Roundup[10]. It also redistributed via mmorpg.com[11]. This redistribution alone satisfies the requirement for notability. See point three of Wikipedia:Notability_(web)#Criteria. Also pay attention to footnote 7. If you still don't feel like these sources provide proof of notability, please explain why. MajorSpoiler.com may be trivial but joystiq.com and mmorpg.com definitely are not. 67.88.66.41 22:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• Double speedy delete recreated article on web content with no claim of notability. -- Dragonfiend 18:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• As demonstrated above this article satisfies the requirements for notability set forth in WP:N. If you disagree with the arguements please explain your reasoning. As has been demonstrated the web comic has been reviewed referenced and redistributed by several reputable sources. Fforde 20:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• Stong Keep High alexa rank, notable web page. Killroy4 11:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)— Killroy4 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Because of bias issues (have to have plug-in installed, internet explorer etc.) Alexa is not regarded as a measure of notability. - Ocatecir 12:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment ExtraLife Radio was also recently independently reviewed here. Just pointing out further sources that have found ExtraLife notable enough to write about. Fforde 17:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• Blogs do not meet the criteria as they are self-published. See WP:V- Ocatecir 17:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• Umm no. Self published means published by the person responsible for the content. If this were a review of ExtraLife, published by the guys at ExtraLife, that would qualify as self-published. This does not, it is published by an independent source. Fforde 18:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• Re-read WP:V#SELF. Basically, self published sources (even independent ones) are largely not acceptable as sources. Wikipedia is not meant to catalog ideas posted on blogs. We have better standards of sourcing, accuracy, and neutrality than that -- we use sources with reputations for fact-checking an accuracy. -- Dragonfiend 18:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• You are right, my mistake, however I was not trying to use this a proof of notability, I feel that is already covered by the redistribution mentioned above. I was just pointing out further references to the site to emphasis the growth ExtraLife has experienced since the article was deleted the first time. And I know audience size is not criteria for notability. It was just a comment. Fforde 18:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• I've read through the above, and I don't see anything thta meets Wikipedia:Notability's "A topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject itself and each other. " --Dragonfiend 19:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• Point three of Wikipedia:Notability_(web)#Criteria states that an article meets criteria for notability if "The content is distributed via a medium which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster." The ExtraLife comic is redistributed via mmorpg.com, a well known and independent news source for massively multiplayer online games. Not only does this website aggregate external news but they also conduct interviews with individuals from well-known game development studios[12] [13] [14]. Based on this redistribution, this article about ExtraLife meets the requirements for Notability. EDIT: My point is that the requirement you quoted is one of three that web based media may satisfy to qualify as notable. The requirment is that the media meet any one of the three possible criteria. --Fforde 19:47, 23 January 2007 (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.