Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cubscast

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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Flowerparty☀ 07:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cubscast

"A free, new and exciting way to connect Cubs fans worldwide!" This article has serious problems with WP:WEB, and an Alexa rank of 946,479. I am recommending delete. --Hetar 19:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - For not even trying to make it not look like spam/vanity. Editing things that involve yourself constitutes vanity, which this most certainly is. Wickethewok 19:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Wait, does "vanity" violate the rules in any way? Also, I would suspect that quite a large number of entries here are done by people involved with the content being noted. In many cases, that might not be a bad thing either. I've corrected factual inaccuracies on the entry of the company I work for, for instance. CaptainSer 19:50, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes - You are specifically not allowed to write about yourself and groups you are in as per rulings by Jimmy Wales and the Arbitration Committee, though usually for larger organizations, this isn't applied. Wickethewok 20:52, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • ?? I'll totally admit that I could be wrong, but it looks like the vanity guidelines say that it's more of a cause for editing out the vain parts rather than deleting the article, and I believe the offending content has been removed, and the Cubscast article now appears to be totally objective. It seems to me that you guys are singling out one article, sometimes judging it by standards which exceed Wikipedia's guidelines (maybe using what you wish the guidelines were). There are countless examples as previouisly mentioned about other podcast entries which have no real merit (unlike this one), yet for some reason have faced no opposition, and are still included in Wiki. The real question becomes, what rules does the current edit violate? Your initial reaction was very justified, but the article has now been edited. I don't see why you can't work with the creator to make it "acceptable" instead of trying to delete it alltogether, while allowing hundreds of less-qualified entires to stay. Claytonb1987 21:35, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Response - Well, I'll admit I don't know if WP has guidelines for what to do if the article is created, but I do that writing about yourself/your organization is explicity a bad article idea. Wickethewok 22:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Re: Response I think I caused a lot of this trouble because I was the one that pointed out to them that they should have an entry. I should have added the entry myself, rather than telling them they should. But what’s done is done and the article now appears fine. I think everyone (even the orignal author) agrees the original article was in violation, but now that the article has been amended, I don’t see how it’s in violation at all. It’s objective, relavanet and follows the guidelines. If you’d like me or someone else outside Cubscast to add the same entry strictly out of quasi-principle, fine, but that just seems silly. CaptainSer 23:24, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Yep, pretty blatant. Must really be diehard fans if they're trying after the last four weeks. Fan1967 19:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment After the edit, no longer blatant spam, but still non-notable, and fails WP:WEB. Fan1967 20:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Sorry, we're new at this. We've taken down the propaganda and given it an objective angle. How is a podcast that has been broadcast multiple times a week for over a year non-notable? A ton of other sports podcasters have borrowed ideas from our show. If people want to find out how to run a sports podcast, I can't think of a better resource.blueberryln 20:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't understand. Hundreds of podcasts are profiled on Wikipedia...this is written from an objective perspective. We're not reinventing the wheel here, we'd just like an entry. If you have specific suggestions, please make them known.
  • Keep. FWIW, there are many similar podcasts that already have articles, and many of them are smaller, much newer shows, so I don't really see a problem with this one. Claytonb1987 21:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm not really up on the slang, but i assume by 'sockpuppet,' you're suggesting that user blueberryln made me up as a fake account to comment here. I do know him, and am an avid supporter of Cubscast, but we live over 2000 miles apart. Feel free to check our IP addresses. As I understand it, Wiki is supposed to be a venue to share information, and all we're trying to do is create a page that fits your guidelines, even though so many other podcasts that you let slip through don't even come close to your standars. If you have a problem with the entry, we would greatly appreciate your suggestions to get it to a point where it meets the criteria. I apologize if blueberryln or I have done anything offensive, as it has not been intentional. I feel like the outside links to non-trival published content on the article qualify the entry.Claytonb1987 23:21, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - Sockpuppetry will get you nowhere. Wickethewok 21:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete this is an attempt at an encyclopedia, not a fanzine listing Bwithh 21:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. This no longer fails WP:WEB. Proven notabilty. CaptainSer 22:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Sure... - Yeah, ok... Welcome to all the new sock puppets/users who joined just to vote in this AFD. Wickethewok 23:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Re: Sure... - I did come on specifically to help the case (I'm not a sock puppet) because I am a fan of this podcast and they aren't violating any rules now, right? I use Wikipedia all the time, love it, and this seems fine to me after changes. If not, tell them what to fix, I'm sure they will. CaptainSer 23:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Read the above sign for a response. Wickethewok 00:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
      • The sign didn't answer my question. As an established user, now that it has been edited, how does the entry violate any of your guidelines? Also, there is already a massive list of podcasts on Wikipedia, many of which are much smaller and have no outiside sources to validate them. CaptainSer 00:38, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • If there are podcasts less notable than this on Wikipedia, they too should be deleted. Wikipedia has standards for notability. For an extreme example, you can't write about friend's dog for a Wikipedia article. Because of Wikipedia has such standards, you must prove a subject's notability in order for it to be on Wikipedia. Wickethewok 00:43, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • The Chicago Tribune found it notable enough to write articles on it multiple times. RedEye newspaper in Chicago also did a color feature on it. WGN radio, one of the largest stations in the world, interviewed a host of the show about the popularity of podcasts and this podcast in particular. Celebrities find it notable enough to go on the show. Many thousands of people a day listen to it. Is that not notable? CaptainSer 01:09, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • A local color feature, especially in something like RedEye, which has, let's face it, a lot of fluff, is not really a good indication. Also, there's a difference between something that may be considered notable locally (and just about anything about the Cubs is notable in Chicago) and what should be considered notable in a worldwide encyclopedia. I don't know about the number of downloaders: what is the bar for a podcast? I suspect the listeners for one team's fanbase are much smaller than a lot of podcasts with wider appeal. Fan1967 17:35, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Then I guess it's a good thing that the RedEye article isn't the only outside source that proves notability, but one of several. Have you guys actually looked at the new edit of the Cubscast Wiki entry?? Certainly you consider a New York affiliate of NPR, WGN Radio, and an in-flight magazine as better sources. 2 of those are non local, and WGN is broadcast nationwide if not world wide. Not to mention the huge feature in the Chicago Tribune. Also, the fan base might be smaller for a niche podcast, but because WGN is a national/worldwide station there are cubs fans literally everywhere. And, as it has been argued here before, Wiki currently hosts articles on 113 other podcasts besides Cubscast. Most of them are much, much, much smaller and lesser known, and a huge majority of them dont have ANY outside sources linked from their articles. Claytonb1987 17:44, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • WGN-TV is broadcast worldwide. WGN radio is strictly local. Fan1967 17:49, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, regardless, WP:WEB makes no such local/national distinction, and Cubscast has provided other non-local examples in addition to the ones which you personally could consider local. WGNradio is also freely available on their website, which makes it internationally accessible. Claytonb1987 18:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • WGN radio was also an original clear channel station, so they are local if you consider millions and millions of people and a 6 state reach local. I'm not sure an entire region of the US including one of the largest cities in the world should be called local. I also happened to listen to the interview on the internet in Canada. CaptainSer 18:35, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • According to the guidelines that have been set forth by Wikipedia, this page for Cubscast appears to fully qualify in the arena of notability. Cubscast is a premiere sports podcast and consistently voted in the top of its category on PodcastAlley.com. If there are other areas it does not qualify in, please make them known. Otherwise we'd appreciate the removal from the "articles for deletion" category. Thanks. blueberryln 01:39, 26 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.