Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TechPhile
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Keep (No consensus). --Doc (?) 18:44, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] TechPhile
Not notable. Delete. brenneman(t)(c) 01:21, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
- Reply. techPhile is one of the biggest and most popular technology podcasts on the web. The podcast is very well-known in the technology internet community and receieves many thousands of downloads per episode. Have a look at the backlinks to see how popular the podcast and site are: here and here. cheers, Treelovinhippie 03:01, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
- To Admins: Please take note that the user who has tagged this article for deletion has surprising done so with many of the other articles I have created/editted. He obviously likes the conflict it causes (as can be seen in the 'dispute box' which is on his user page). Treelovinhippie 05:41, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
-
- Comment - I think it goes without saying that Treelovinhippie's comments here and on his user page (both exhibiting ignorance of wikipedia policy and community norms, and an insulting lack of respect for his fellow wikipedians) warrants more attention from administrators than a perfectly reasonable AfD. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:37, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Notable podcast.--Nicodemus75 05:46, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Informative and popular podcast.--Aardwolf204 04:23, 4 October 2005 (EST)
- Evidence. For those of you people who don't have a clue as to the popularity of techPhile....
- Now as I have stated before, it is often difficult to state exact figures on the number of downloads per podcast, as often these are distributed via bittorrent (which is very difficult to track) and the podcasts end up all over the net with various other sources distributing it.
- Another thing I'll post is a link to a post on http://www.digg.com (a social bookmarking site). Basically the number of 'diggs' is how many people have clicked to 'digg' it and is an indication of its popularity. See an example of a digg article posted for this podcast here: http://www.digg.com/technology/Techphile_Episode_11_From_the_TechTV_Meetup_in_Toronto
- Delete. Encyclopedic notability not established by the article, which looks like advertising. Gamaliel 11:19, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Non-notable podcast. android79 13:03, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, doesn't seem to be notable despite the best efforts of its defenders to convince it otherwise. Lord Bob 14:51, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, very notable podcast. It's a quality podcast that's updated on a regular basis. Which is more than I can say for most of the podcasts today. Even my own. Not to mention the work Frank has done for the Canadian podcasting community. MacGeek 17:54, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete yet another non-notable podcast. As before, in reference to the evidence provided, "diggs" are around 500. The biggest hit on the provided site is 1000 and that is only because that particular episode was about diggs.com. There are blogs out there that get that many hits a day... and I don't consider them notable.--Isotope23 19:41, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
- The number of 'diggs' is a very, very rough guide as to the popularity of this podcast. digg.com is only one site (out of the many hundreds of other sites this podcast is backlinked from) and many people may not have clicked the digg button, but simply gone straight to the link.
- OK... then it is completely worthless as evidence of the popularity of this podcast...--Isotope23 13:36, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
- The number of 'diggs' is a very, very rough guide as to the popularity of this podcast. digg.com is only one site (out of the many hundreds of other sites this podcast is backlinked from) and many people may not have clicked the digg button, but simply gone straight to the link.
- Keep(with provisions) It is a notable podacast that has been recommended on both professional broadcast and print media. It is an Amateur production, in the sense of for the love of it, and this does initially put off some listeners that are used to and prefer professional or professional grade production. Once you get past that and listen for the quality of the content, it is far greater than the large majority of free podcasts. The only provision I have to keeping it is if the actual entry is improved because of its not quite "ready for prime time" entry. I do not have the time currently to do this myself, or I would. WolvenSpectre 00:11, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
- Keep Why is this non-notable? What is the criteria to determine this? I notice that some people write that this podcast doesn't have enough viewers to be notable -- but how many viewers does a podcast need to be notable? And why that number? Please try to come up with substantial reasons for deleting articles. -- llywrch 00:25, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
- Let me turn this around for a second llywrch... why is it notable? Where is the evidence that this is a popular podcast that is generating alot of buzz? Podcasts are like blogs; inherently non-notable for the simple fact that they are basically vanity projects. Anyone can start a podcast and spam it all over the internet. They can even charge to view it, but that doesn't make it notable or important. I would strongly argue that in reference to any non-traditional media of this sort the burden of proof is on those arguing keep as there is not as clear and concise of a method of establishing notability as exists with traditional media. One could certainly argue that this is simply an example of "old media" like magazines, television, etc. ignoring the "new media" of podcasts, but the complete lack of ANY coverage of techPhile by independant, 3rd party sources makes it impossible to verify any of the claims of popularity. I would therefore turn this around and ask you and those voting keep to come up with substantial reasons to retain this article beyond it being listed in some podcast guides and the contention of the random wiki user that it is indeed "notable".--Isotope23 13:52, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
- So are you saying that podcasts & blogs should both be considered non-notable on the basis of vanity? I disagree: while many blogs are obviously vanity projects, it requires only a little work to determine whether their notability is "yes" "no" or "maybe". I would think that the same could be said of podcasting; I assume that there are notable podcasts out there that are not connected with established broadcasting companies. I freely admit that you could write a book for O'Reilly on what I don't know about podcasting, however, instead of providing the information needed by those of us who are ignorant about podcasting, all Brenneman said above is "not notable. Delete." Some kind of comparative information on audience size & reach is one possible argument for his opinion, but so far from what I've seen I could easily conclude he wants to delete this article out of animosity for this podcast -- not that I do here, but more information than those three words would not only make his intent clear, it would be a kindness to the contributor, who must wonder if such a terse criticism is indended to make him stop contributing. And until it can be shown that this article is non notable, we should keep it. Assume good faith. -- llywrch 19:19, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
- I'm not saying all blogs and podcasts are non-notable... what I'm saying is that due to the nature of podcasting (and blogging) they are intristically in a weaker position of notability than more established media, primarily because there is a lack of verifiable data out there to support their claims of notibility if nobody from established media sources is paying any mind to these podcasts & blogs. There are notable podcasts out there. Daily Source Code is a good example based on it's "trailblazing" status. But here is where it we get into a philosophical debate that could go on ad infinitum: you want the burden of proof on the nominator... I put it on the author. I assume good faith in the creation of this article, but that doesn't mean the author has in any way indicated notability. Based on my own research, I've seen nothing that would indicate that TechPhile is in any way notable. the evidence posted for keeping it is unconvincing. As way of evidence for deletion, I can offer you in the complete lack of any coverage of TechPhile on any major IT media outlets, be it web, magazine, etc. It's primary return in a Google search is numerous podcast list sites where it is one of 100 other non-notable casts; not that I think that will convince you... Point is that in the end llywrch, you and I have a completely different viewpoint of where the burden of proof is... which would explain our differing votes.--Isotope23 20:37, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
- Well, Isotope, you & I agree at least that we disagree; I'm satisfied to leave the matter there. I would like to point out (at the risk of repeating myself), that had Brennerman originally wrote a more satisfactory & detailed nomination & touched on some of the points you had done, we would not be having this conversation -- a thought for everyone who found this discussion more tedious than informative, & would want to avoid repeating the exercise. -- llywrch 17:52, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
- Nice free kick. Articles for deletion is intended as a discussion. While, as a courtesy, I often provide links to the digging I've done, I often do not. If contributors to the discussion cannot take the trouble to do a little research themselves then perhaps they'd do well to not voice an uninformed opinion. - brenneman(t)(c) 23:55, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
- Well, Isotope, you & I agree at least that we disagree; I'm satisfied to leave the matter there. I would like to point out (at the risk of repeating myself), that had Brennerman originally wrote a more satisfactory & detailed nomination & touched on some of the points you had done, we would not be having this conversation -- a thought for everyone who found this discussion more tedious than informative, & would want to avoid repeating the exercise. -- llywrch 17:52, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
- I'm not saying all blogs and podcasts are non-notable... what I'm saying is that due to the nature of podcasting (and blogging) they are intristically in a weaker position of notability than more established media, primarily because there is a lack of verifiable data out there to support their claims of notibility if nobody from established media sources is paying any mind to these podcasts & blogs. There are notable podcasts out there. Daily Source Code is a good example based on it's "trailblazing" status. But here is where it we get into a philosophical debate that could go on ad infinitum: you want the burden of proof on the nominator... I put it on the author. I assume good faith in the creation of this article, but that doesn't mean the author has in any way indicated notability. Based on my own research, I've seen nothing that would indicate that TechPhile is in any way notable. the evidence posted for keeping it is unconvincing. As way of evidence for deletion, I can offer you in the complete lack of any coverage of TechPhile on any major IT media outlets, be it web, magazine, etc. It's primary return in a Google search is numerous podcast list sites where it is one of 100 other non-notable casts; not that I think that will convince you... Point is that in the end llywrch, you and I have a completely different viewpoint of where the burden of proof is... which would explain our differing votes.--Isotope23 20:37, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
- So are you saying that podcasts & blogs should both be considered non-notable on the basis of vanity? I disagree: while many blogs are obviously vanity projects, it requires only a little work to determine whether their notability is "yes" "no" or "maybe". I would think that the same could be said of podcasting; I assume that there are notable podcasts out there that are not connected with established broadcasting companies. I freely admit that you could write a book for O'Reilly on what I don't know about podcasting, however, instead of providing the information needed by those of us who are ignorant about podcasting, all Brenneman said above is "not notable. Delete." Some kind of comparative information on audience size & reach is one possible argument for his opinion, but so far from what I've seen I could easily conclude he wants to delete this article out of animosity for this podcast -- not that I do here, but more information than those three words would not only make his intent clear, it would be a kindness to the contributor, who must wonder if such a terse criticism is indended to make him stop contributing. And until it can be shown that this article is non notable, we should keep it. Assume good faith. -- llywrch 19:19, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
- Let me turn this around for a second llywrch... why is it notable? Where is the evidence that this is a popular podcast that is generating alot of buzz? Podcasts are like blogs; inherently non-notable for the simple fact that they are basically vanity projects. Anyone can start a podcast and spam it all over the internet. They can even charge to view it, but that doesn't make it notable or important. I would strongly argue that in reference to any non-traditional media of this sort the burden of proof is on those arguing keep as there is not as clear and concise of a method of establishing notability as exists with traditional media. One could certainly argue that this is simply an example of "old media" like magazines, television, etc. ignoring the "new media" of podcasts, but the complete lack of ANY coverage of techPhile by independant, 3rd party sources makes it impossible to verify any of the claims of popularity. I would therefore turn this around and ask you and those voting keep to come up with substantial reasons to retain this article beyond it being listed in some podcast guides and the contention of the random wiki user that it is indeed "notable".--Isotope23 13:52, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Google search turns up lots of links, and not to directories, Wikipedia mirrors and link farms. Seems like people are really listening to their podcasts. Notable enough for me. -- DS1953 03:39, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
- Listening? No. We know that it's listed in the podcast guides a Google search returns, yeah. We don't know who's actually listening. We know that they aren't talking about it, that it hasn't made the news
, and they sure aren't taking pictures of it. If it's so notable, why hasn't it been mentioned in Wired or Salon? Or even in The Stranger for goodness sake. Please give evidence of it's notability. - brenneman(t)(c) 06:05, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
- Listening? No. We know that it's listed in the podcast guides a Google search returns, yeah. We don't know who's actually listening. We know that they aren't talking about it, that it hasn't made the news
-
- Comment - How many pictures are there of notable radio shows? I'm not arguing with your other points, but the Google Images reference is just reaching and makes you look too eager to have all these podcast entries removed.
- 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
