Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Podnography

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. Even with all the obviously discounted editors, I still see consensus to delete. Even allowing for past concerns over "war on blogs", there are editors who are not linked to that (to my knowledge) who are still quite clear on this article. -Splash^talk 00:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Podnography

non-notable; 50k-or-so Google hits, pretty much all of which are Wikipedia mirrors or useless blog posts. Hosterweis 12:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - Non-notable vanity trash - Wikipedia needs about 100% less of this. 71.136.194.138 12:55, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • This vote was made by CptChipJew Cptchipjew 08:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - and shove your iPods - Femmina 13:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. get rid of this shitty "article" it's nonsense. pur waste of time. waste of bytes. waste of everything!!!!11one —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.12.74.4 (talk • contribs).
• Delete podcruft and vansipamcruftisement at that. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 14:34, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per Guy. PJM 17:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per 81.12.74.4. Hey! If that's the author, can't we speedy delete? Dan 18:20, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • No, 81.12.74.4 (talk • contribs) is not the article author, what makes you think that? He only vandalized the article. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-03 22:20Z
  • Soz, wishful thinking from looking at his contribs Dan 17:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. *drew 22:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or rename or merge. The name of the article is a neologism, but the article is OK otherwise, establishes notability of the phenomenon via media attention (WSJ, NYT, SFC). Seems as notable as the other podcasting-related articles such as Godcasting. The article claims major newspapers including the SF Chronicle have used the term "podnography". —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-03 22:13Z
  • I can't help but mention the fact that I can't seem to find an article called Godcasting anywhere on Wikipedia. This may be, in fact, the only page that mentions it at all. Actually, I found eight articles across all Wikipedia namespaces that mention the word "Godcasting". Hosterweis 06:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Bodcast, per my recent suggestion on the page. Daniel Case 03:33, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with Bodcast and also Porncasting. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-04 11:02Z
• Delete, per nom. —--Aude (talk | contribs) 06:22, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Gets 55,000 Google hits, which makes it verifiable and notable, if personally repugnant. Turnstep 15:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • To clarify, a Google search for "podnography -wikipedia" still yields 49,000 hits.
    • "podnography -wikipedia -blog" yields 811. Hosterweis 14:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
      • So anything that appears on a blog totally discounts "notability" and "verifiability"? Turnstep 23:27, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
        • Nearly all the blogs mentioning the word 'podnography' are non-notable, personal blogs that no one really cares about. So, yes. -- Hosterweis 04:47, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
        • I can't agree with that. Blogs indicate that people are talking about it, and this make it notable. Even discarding the blogs, 811 is still a significant number and at least satisfies the criteria for not being a neologism ("realistic evidence of existence"). Turnstep 17:54, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Those results are inflated by several pages mentioning it over and over, see http://www.google.com/search?q=podnography+-wikipedia&hl=en&lr=&start=450&sa=N . This is the case for most neologisms. Tapir 20:27, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Utter rubbish. Incognito 02:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Get this utter crap out of wikipedia. Should just ban blog* articles and pod* articles. --Timecop 04:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I'm not impressed. --Depakote 11:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - pap. Proto t c 13:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - People writing this kind of articles should be shot. Tapir User had 8 edits before this recent blizzard of podcasting/blog "delete" votes
• Delete - pointless, cruft
• Delete Please make it end. Jmax- 19:12, 5 January 2006 (UTC) Jmax User had 3 edits before this recent blizzard of podcasting/blog "delete" votes
• Comment. Please give a valid reason when voting, whether Keep or Delete. I'm okay with either resolution, but the closing admin deserves more than some of the "reason" (or lack thereof) above. Turnstep 19:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per Guy. --kingboyk 20:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Forallah 02:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC) Forallah User's only edits are to this recent blizzard of podcasting/blog "delete" votes and his/her talk page
• Keep There are links in the article that show it being used in the lexicon (so I think that makes it notable). It makes the most sense to merge this with porncasting... in some sort of vocab subsection. neonlovechicken
  • Wikipedia guidelines say to avoid neologisms, and "podnography" is nothing short of one. Hosterweis 08:00, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Are you sure about that? The guidelines say: Wikipedia does not accept articles on fan-made neologisms unless they have realistic evidence of existence via verifiable usage data (See Corpus linguistics) or, at the least, search engine hits. I'd say this definitely satisfies the search engine hit requirement, even if you take out the mirrors and the blogs (see above). Turnstep 17:54, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete podcruft. Eusebeus 18:54, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
• keep. the term exists. the history exists. Kingturtle 06:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete blogcruft. --King of All the Franks 07:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete seems pointless WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 07:59, 9 January 2006 (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.