Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gamers daily

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. Johnleemk | Talk 13:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gamers daily

Was up for Wikipedia:Proposed deletion (nomination), but the author removed the tag. It's still a podcast whose best claim to notability is a mention on two other podcasts. —Cryptic (talk) 16:32, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

• Comment, 52 episodes, has a bit of feedback on Yahoo podcasts. --Interiot 16:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Does not seem notable enough. --Andy Saunders 17:17, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. It is notable enough in certain circles, however the article needs work. Ben W Bell 20:56, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Just wondering, how come RedBarRadio has been on Wikipedia forever (Alexa 300,000), yet GamersDaily keeps getting deleted (Alexa 170,000)? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.35.26.78 (talk • contribs) 21:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Because even Alexa admits that rankings above 100,000 are meaningless. See Wikipedia:Google test#Alexa test. —Cryptic (talk) 21:31, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Then how did Red Bar Radio prove their notability in the current 'Non-notable until proven otherwise'-system that exists here?
    • I don't see an AFD nomination for them. -- Andy Saunders 23:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Thats what I mean. The Red Bar wiki entry just says 'thousands of listeners', without showing proof, and no one bothers them. These GamersDaily guys, on the other hand, have shown concrete proof that they're notable, and have still been targeted TWICE for deletion. I just don't get it.
        • I'm surprised nobody offered before, but ever the sucker I will do it: Let's list Red Bar Radio for deletion too. I understand this guy's complaint and he has a point. Personally I imagine they're both non notable. --kingboyk 03:49, 5 February 2006 (UTC) Done: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Red Bar Radio --kingboyk 03:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable podcast. —Cleared as filed. 22:49, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Cleared as filed. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:39, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Why does notability have to be proved, but 'non-notability' does not need proof, but just a Chihuahua saying "per so-and-so"?
• Keep Do y'all even listen to games podcasts? Ask 10 regular game podcast listeners and 8 of them will know these guys. Chillax... DockMur24 00:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Reeks of WP:VSCA. --Kinu 03:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Kinu and others --kingboyk 03:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Ask 10 regular game podcast listeners... if you can find that many. Ashibaka tock 06:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Looks like they found about seven thousand or so DockMur24 07:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This is more than notable given the number of listeners, visitors to the site and mentions on other notable websites. If this is taken down then you might as well take down the Kotaku and Joystiq blog sites as well for supposedly being 'non-notable' Thefold 07:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep For what they do they are noteable enough to be left here.Cyborg771 07:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep These guys have plenty of credibility, from the website and podcast feeds, they have put out 52 episodes. 52 episodes don't come without a fan base.Hater2win 08:39, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The fact that Gamers daily specifically thinks ill of me doesn't help change my mind. Perhaps that shows just how non-notable they are when they think it's big news to mention a humble AfD voter on their podcast. See also previous nomination: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gamersdaily. — TheKMan^talk 23:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • So "hurt feelings" influence your decisions? So much for objectivity and credibility.
    • I'm voting delete because it's non-notable, silly-billy. — TheKMan^talk 23:40, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Don't flatter yourself, it was 10 seconds in a 45 minute show. You were the equivalent of the guy that walks across the screen in the background of a tv show.
• Comment Isn't it fascinating that no one has provided a BASIS for their opinions of non-notability? Awesome.
  • Wikipedia is not a web directory. Notability has to be proven, not non-notability. Ashibaka tock 00:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
    • How has it not been, based on all of the evidence provided in the 'notable achievements' section? Of the 5,000 or so internet game shows in the world, certainly the top 10 (that's the top 0.2%!) would be considered 'notable'. Based on factual evidence, GamersDaily would be in that select group. How is it that you can't see that?
• Delete per Ashibaka. Stifle 01:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This podcast has provided great content for the gaming community. [FrankDaFixer] 03:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I find it curious that more 'commercial' podcasts such as TWIT and Diggnation are happily seen as notable. Those guys make a living off of what they do and the GamersDaily hosts make nothing whatsoever, they do this for their passion of videogames. I can understand that Wikipedia is not a a web directory, but it is meant to be an encyclopedic record of the world we live in, which includes podcasts, one of the fastest rising methods of people having their say on the world around them. Given that GamersDaily do get the number of listeners they do (and can prove it), as well as lasting as far as 52 episodes to date with no signs of letting up, I do not see the grounds for which they are non-notable whatsoever. They are just as notable as any other podcast of its age and fanbase.
• KEEP! For all the people who say "Not Notable" why not shut up and listen to Episode 52.
• Keep Low on production values, but high on content - this podcast is relavent.

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.