Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battlefield 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Battlefield podcast, Battlefield Podcast

"What's wrong with having this? Other podcasts are listed here as well..."--Peekj 18:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I see no advertising here, and i created this article with no intention of doing it. This is purely an informative article about the popular podcast among many BF2 fans. Who feels this should be deleted, please post it here so we can see why you would consider such a thing!

- SuperTyphoon—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.233.182.179 (talk • contribs)

Haha Angus just because you don't like the article doesn't mean you need to delete it, idiot. because other people enjoy reading it and learning about it. You got a problem with videogame podcasts? Take out your childish anger somewhere else, pal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SuperTyphoon (talk • contribs) 22:30, July 17, 2006

No demonstrated notability.--Peta 06:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Fails WP:WEB. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 08:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. DarthVader 10:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
• Moved to Battlefield Podcast. No Vote. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom fails WP:WEB.--John Lake 19:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete WP:WEB again. A podcast about a video game ? A poster child for Wikipedian systemic bias for sure. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, Peta is spot on, forgot to demonstrate notability however with the exception of that it doesn't fail WP:WEB it in fact passes one possibly even two of the three criteria's. On a side note "Delete WP:WEB" just doesnt cut it (give us a reson) or how about you lot go help expand the wikipedia instead of trolling the AfD section. - Alan McGeoch 23:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment What part of WP:WEB's notability standards does it meet ? Reviews ? None mentioned or found; if there are reviews, add them to the external links and mention them in the article. Award ? Same. Distributed by a well known site independent of the creators ? Can't see that it meets this either as the example given on WP:WEB is Gervais's blog being carried by the Guardian. Angus McLellan (Talk) 08:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment It meets this part: 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. The content is distributed via a site independent of the creators': Fileplanet. http://www.fileplanet.com/104762/0/section/Chalk.One-Battlefield-Podcast --Peekj 16:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
      • "FilePlanet is a video game download service". That's not one of newspaper, magazine, publisher or broadcaster. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
        • I think a lot of people would disagree with you there. Fileplanet is part of Gamespy/IGN. They are one of the largest publishers/broadcasters/content providers on the net for this type of content. I'm not sure why you're so adement about deleting this article, but your reasons for doing so are pretty thinly stretched. --Peekj 17:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as failing WP:WEB. I verified lack of notability per Angus McLellan's research, and can add that Google found me only 125 distinct hits, no reviews, no awards, a lot of mirrors. Tychocat 11:36, 18 July 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.