Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Murphy (podcaster)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Joe Murphy (podcaster)

Joe Murphy (podcaster) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Non-notable memorial page. I think it's a speedy candidate as it stands--speedy tag was deleted by editor who is not the original author, but who is intimately involved with creating the article. --Finngall ^talk 23:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Please read some of the related articles (Wingin' It, Slice of SciFi, Evo Terra, Michael R. Mennenga, and apparently some vandal deleted Farpoint Media too) if you don't believe me. I am not affiliated with this show other than as a listener, and as you can plainly I cleaned up the article to remove the POV stuff that would make it irrelevant.

I don't know how long a page that's up for deletion gets to be improved before it's actually deleted, but I'm willing to bet that if I don't expand on it someone will.

Don't dismiss something like podcasting just because you might not be familiar with it yourself. It's a fairly new phenomenon, but growing very fast. --dllu 23:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep He's somewhat notable and what bloody difference does it make if this page is kept - it's not as though Wikipedia is short of space! The guy's dead and now you're planning to delete his Wikipedia article too. Xanucia 23:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete Sad that he died, but wikipedia is not a memorial and the article as written makes no claim of notability. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. I guess I won't say speedy since one could argue that that excellence in podcasting award thing is an assertion of notability. Nonetheless, that assertion falls for short of actual WP:BIO standards for notability. Xanucia's argument is basically WP:NOHARM, I think. Mwelch 00:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The 'NOHARM' article is just an essay and not Wiki policy. People use Wikipedia because it is huge and contains SO MUCH information. This is why we like it and this is how it should remain. Xanucia 22:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't claim it was policy; I was just noting that that was the argument. Of course, WP:NOT is a policy, so "it allows us to include more information people like" is hardly a convincing argument. As for this specific entry, certainly the number of "keep" votes (some of whom are SPA's, but clearly not all) is perhaps reason to pause. But I'm still forced to wonder: if the gentleman is truly as significant as the "keep" voters suggest, why is there no secondary source coverage of him cited? Mwelch 22:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Wikipedia is not a memorial and there is no indication of any notability. Otto4711 01:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - As said Wikipedia is not a memorial.--Bryson^{{Talk}{Edits}} 02:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep As the original article creator, I guess I should point out that this page is not intented as a memorial. The fact that he recently died is tragic, but is not the reason to keep the page. The plain fact is that he was a co-host in several very popular podcasts and a radio show, and out of the four main hosts of these shows, currently only two have pages in wikipedia (which don't seem to be considered for deletion at all). I must say also that is my full intention, once Joe's page is mostly complete, to create another entry for Summer Brooks, the other host that is not currently included in Wikipedia. Failing to include them would not paint a fair picture of their contributions to podcasting history. --Mklopez 04:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. WP is not a memorial, and subject and his podcast did not meet notability standards before or after his death. Realkyhick 05:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. I have stated my reasons above, and I can add these points from the WP:BIO page:

• The person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field
• Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment

The same can be said for the other people invovled with these shows. And what exactly are the "standards of notability"? That enough people listening to podcasts just happen to be active on Wikipedia too? I have come across loads of articles here that were completely irrelevant to me, but I didn't nominate them for deletion because the authors obviously had a point in putting them up there. Personal preferences might help decide what goes on Wikipedia, but they certainly should not decide what doesn't.

The bottom line is, podcasting is a fast growing medium, and if these articles aren't allowed to stay now, they will surely be back to stay later. --dllu 11:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, grandiose claims of supporters notwithstanding. This guy reviewed stuff, he didn't "contribute to the historical record". Inventing podcasting is contributing to the historical record. --Dhartung | Talk 12:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Joe was a regular contributor to 4 different podcasts for over 2 yrs and did radio work prior to that. The timing of the page may seem like a memorial page; however, all of the Farpoint Media podcasters should have a page because they are minor celebrities. I'd put them on par with Martin Sarget as far as level of fame, but I don't see any "deletion" posts over on his page Martin_Sargent. ALSO - I just remembered that he was nominated for a Parsec award and IS LISTED BY NAME on the Wikipedia Parsec Page here Parsec_Awards If he was important enough to list there, why not have a page?!?! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RapidEye (talk • contribs) 13:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC).
• Strong Delete Yes, it is sad that he is dead, but the guy is completely non-notable. A podcaster is no more notable than a HAM radio operator. This guy was not one of the people who invented podcasting, all he did was edit and review some stuff. RogueNinja 16:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Mr. Murphy was a regular contributor to some of the highest rated podcasts. The arguments that "all he did was review stuff" are absurd. There are entries for Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert, and all they did was "review stuff" as well. The announcer from the Rush Limbaugh show has his own entry. Engineers and producers from the Howard Stern show have their own pages. To diminish the work Mr. Murphy did on his several podcasts is to make a judgement call that podcasts are less significant than radio broadcasts.64.255.240.82 17:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC) — 64.255.240.82 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 00:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC) (UTC).
• Keep As others have said, the timing is unfortunate in that it looks a lot like a memorial page. I feel Joe Murphy's contributions make him notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. He was nominated for awards for his podcasting, and he is well-known and viewed as a minor celebrity within the podcasting world. A comparison to ham radio is not valid, speaking as a ham radio operator. Ham radio is about person-to-person communication, whereas podcasting is a form of broadcast. - Fordan 17:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Joe Murphy was quite a notable figure to a great number of people as a well-known XM Radio personality and podcaster in many circles. Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 02:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Joe Murphy already has a memorial site. That is not what this article is. Joe's life and death has warranted considerable coverage in the podiosphere and blogosphere. Technorati shows a significant number of non-trivial hits on Joe. His life and death have considerably raised awareness of of Leiomyosarcoma and this impact is expected to grow and be long lasting. Ultimate ed 12:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Joe's contributions to podcasting are important and should be noted. Podcasting is becoming a significant media. I have never listened to a "HAM Radio 'Cast".Love2bebookish 21:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC) — love2bebookish (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 00:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC) (UTC).

Comment-Although apparently, the above was User:love2bebookish's first edit to wikipedia, this new editor did eventually begin editing, after receiving a welcome. This is quite different than the above unsigned newbie biting approach of "tagging" single-edit users. I am interested in why this particular AfD has a single editor tag at the top, when this is not normative for all, or even most, AfDs. Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 06:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• • Clearly, the template was added because someone felt that people were being told to swarm the page by an outside source. Its not usual for AfDs, but it does happen. RogueNinja_talk 06:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Although this may be the case, it does also serve a function of newbie biting to tag a signed-in newcomers first edit AND then not even try to reach out to that editor with a welcome. I don't see this type of action as assuming good faith. It comes across as quite the converse. Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 06:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)