Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Visibility 9-11 Podcast

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 delete. Mailer Diablo 03:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Visibility 9-11 Podcast

promotional; fails WP:WEB. see also Michael Wolsey. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete This is a vanity article. --Porqin 13:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete podcast that, as far as I can tell, falls well short of the WP:WEB guidelines.--Isotope23 14:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, no evidence that subject meets WP:WEB. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• I have made a few changes to the article with the following commentary. This is clearly not a vanity article. After reading the section on this topic, it is clear that at worst, there was, toward the end, "...material that presents the appearance of being intended to in any way promote the personal notoriety of the author..." From this same article WP:VAIN, there is a clear distinction between vanity infromation and a vanity article. The assertion that this is a vanity article is simply an exaggeration. I have removed the references to Michael, except for mention as the host, to avoid this appearence.

I diliberately did not include the Revere Radio Network aspect because I wanted to keep it simple and avoid the appearence of "vanity". After reading the WP:WEB, I see that I should have included it. Quoting WP:WEB, "3. The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster." Revere Radio Network is both independent and well known with a current google search number of 10,900. They are very well known depending on who you talk to.

Also, it is worth mentioning that adding this show to Wikipedia in the 9-11 conspiracy theories section is very appropriate. The 9-11 section of Wikipedia is large. In fact, this article under consideration cites Wikipedia pages 9 times with regard to 9-11. Regardless of what you think about the 9-11 conspiracy theories, Michael has made a significant contribution in this area with this show. This show belongs in this section along with all the other researchers who are featured.

I believe that with the previously mentioned edit, and new information now provided, this article fits within the Wikipedia guidelines. If I am mistaken, please assist me in bringing this article within Wikipedia guidelines. Thank you for taking the time and for your careful consideration. Visibility911 22:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Fails WP:WEB for lacking multiple non-trivial third-party articles. I get 14 Google hits for "visibility 9-11 podcast", all directories or other self-promotional sites (two hits each to visibility911 and colorado911visibility websites). While Google should not be the final arbiter of notability, at this level it is symptomatic. Tychocat 11:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

• WP:WEB clearly says: "Web specific-content is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:" I believe I have shown that this program fits within criteria #3 cited above. Anyone who uses Google knows one cannot enter one set of key words when they are looking for something. Simply remove the word podcast from the above search and you will yeild 716 hits on Google, and the Yahoo search engine produced 2,360 using the same key words. I also find the above statement by Tychocat to be somewhat misleading if not erroneous. I tried the same search on Google. I got 23 hits, not a big enough difference that 14 to make a big deal about, however, "directories and self promotional sites"? Tychocat, would you please explain this statement for the discussion? Yes, the podcasting host site came up first with CO911V right behind but how are these "directories and self-promotional"? Additionally, I did not see anything else that could remotely fit this description. If I am so far off base in my reasoning, why doesn't an experienced Wikipedian clear up my misunderstanding? I would really appreciate that. Thank you. Visibility911 00:50, 2 August 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.