Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anime pulse

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.  RasputinAXP  c 03:59, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

ATTENTION! If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}

[edit] Anime pulse

Non-notable podcast Skysmith 09:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per NN Ydam 09:07, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. DarthVader 10:30, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per everyone. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:37, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -- Kicking222 13:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete with extreme prejudice per nom. Oh boy, a whole 3500 DLs per cast? I'd get that many hits in the next ninety seconds with an "Alexis Bledel Nude Sunbathing" article, never mind the sheer power of a podcast with the following adline: "Rukia, the awesome girlfriend-san, adds the female point of view with commentary and reviews." I believe I shall adopt the article's own rating system and give it a "burn it and [urinate] on the ashes" ranking. (Plainly I need more tea.) RGTraynor 14:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, as far as I can tell this falls below WP:WEB... and I want to see the source for RGTraynor's "Alexis Bledel Nude Sunbathing" article.--Isotope23 17:36, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment; well, if you hit my PayPal account ... RGTraynor 18:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, As far as WP:WEB #1, it may not be multiple at this point, but the write-up on Anime.com was neither trivial nor instigated internally.--Psiclopz 20:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• 'Keep, There is obviously some hatred toward podcasts here and their reasons are not pollicy just opinion. I will also point out that comparing anything's hits to porn is futile, as we all know that's 90% of the internet. RGTraynor Your personal opinion of someones title doesn't change the notability. It seems that the only reason anyone considers it NN is because it is a podcast. Weltall42 23:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - Because the only way anyone could possibly find a podcast non-notable is if he has a personal axe to grind? That being said, the inevitable forum post about the AfD is out on their BB [1], and the only contributions of the previous two editors are on the article, its talk page and this AfD. RGTraynor 05:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - Oh no! Someone has never bothered to edit an article before now. That must mean that they are just tooting their own horn. That being said, your condescending attitude is not useful to this discussion. - Psiclopz 14:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - Sorry I don't know my previous user name and don't have hundreds of edits, I have have contributed to more and will be for some time Weltall42 21:59, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - Due to precedence. The Dawn and Drew show http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dawn_and_Drew do not meet any of the Notable criteria required but yet I don't see you trying to delete their entry. Ichigo 15:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment What precedent are you referring to? Dawn and Drew already underwent 2 AfD's, one ended in Keep on fairly low vote numbers and the second was withdrawn (incorrectly formated nom; appears nominator mistook the first AfD's votes for a quick tally of keeps and withdrew the nomination). Dawn and Drew is arguably one of the most popular podcasts out there. Personally, I don't know why anyone bothers with the mindless drivel that is D&D, but it is obviously quite popular. Are you suggesting that Anime pulse is on the same level of popularity as D&D? Can you provide some evidence of this? Where does it rank on some of the Podcast ranking sites (Podcast Alley for instance)?--Isotope23 13:44, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - as per all above. 3500 downloads per cast may seem small to you, but it's 3499 more than is needed for a fan-base. Just because it's small doesn't mean it shouldn't be included in the wiki. I don't understand the _need_ for the deletion. If you don't find the podcast or this associated wiki page interesting, that's grand, everyone is obviously entitled to an opinion, but why remove a wiki page that other people may be interested in ? Zerophyte 16:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Because Wikipedia, being an encyclopedia, has standards for admission, and those standards rest upon verifiability and notability; I commend WP:WEB to you in this particular case. As it happens, the Dawn & Drew podcast cited above has an Alexa rank of 10,924, which is decent. By contrast, Anime Pulse's website has an Alexa rank of 1,051,956, which is downright horrible, and has so little traffic that it doesn't even rank in the top hundred thousand of websites for daily traffic. Comparing the two podcasts is like comparing apple trees with apple seeds. When your cast become notable, then you should feel free to have an article written about your site. It is certainly not so now. (And beyond that, as long as you folks rank other people's works with the phrase ""burn it and piss on the ashes", you really don't have much of a leg to stand on to claim insult.) RGTraynor 17:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: 1. Last I checked, WP:WEB doesn't have Alexa listed as a valid way to determine notability, and 2. 10924 is the rank for www.podshow.com, of which Dawn and Drew are 1 subdomain. Their site itself is not near that high, so get your own facts straight before trying to look cool. Psiclopz 18:21, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete: notability not established despite claims by other users and sock puppets. Come back when you have several reliable sources. --Hetar 19:47, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment You've just gotta love the way sock/meat puppets never seem to vote Keep properly. It makes them so much easier to spot.Ydam 19:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Your face is stupid. That the equivilant of your last argument, since wikipedia has standards for admission, facts beeing wrong and calling people sock puppets means many of your comments and opinions here should be deleted. Weltall42 22:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment That was not an argument, mearly an observation based on experiance. The arguments here carry exactly the same validity weather they come from an experianced user with a long edit history or from someone who's just signed up. As it happens a satisfactory reason as to why this fulfill wiki notability guidelines has yet to be presented. If one can be presented then I and I'm sure others will happily change their opinions Ydam 22:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Agreed... I wholly open to considering any good logical argument as to why this should be kept or evidence of this meeting WP:WEB (or even why this should be considered important/popular withing the context of the podcast genre).--Isotope23 13:46, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as nn. --MaNeMeBasat 06:37, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn --Alphachimp ^talk 06:37, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Why delete it? Wikipedia exists to provide information to any and every user. If a rigid doctrine on restricting what is or isn't admissable is going to be enforced, then I strongly suggest people look at the "unnecessary" pages that are already here. The page is harmless, constructive even, providing information for the podcast's growing fanbase. Yes, I said growing. Got it memorised? Because while the fanbase isn't the strongest, it is increasing weekly. Look at the podcast's site and forum for proof. Lunatic raveV 00:08, 22 May 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.