Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/East Meets West (podcast)

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 was Delete. --VS talk 00:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] East Meets West (podcast)

  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}}
East Meets West (podcast) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Procedural nomination, failed prod. Does not meet WP:WEB notability requirements: has not been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works, won a well-known and independent award, or distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators. Article has been tagged requiring references since November 2007.

Speedy deletion was declined in October 2006 with reason "podcast is hosted by notable people". However, inclusion requirements are that the web content itself must be notable, not just the producers (alternative would be to merge content into Tom Merritt and Roger Chang articles).

Another reason for contesting prod on talk page was that due to the self-publishing nature of podcasts they have difficulty achieving notability requrements. This is an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument, and does not cover why this podcast is notable. There are many other shows out there that do meet notability requirements, and keep in mind only one of the three criterion are required for WP:WEB. Thanks. Breno talk 16:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep It's easy to argue both of the primary hosts and most of the periodic hosts are 'notable' by wikipedia standards. I'd be willing to argue this is notable just for the fact that the hosts work for 2 rival companies (CNet and ZDNet) yet still get together to create a podcast on their own times. Not that I expect this to be a good enough arguement for Wikipedia's deletion patrol. I'm really wondering when te subtitle of wikipedia will change from "the free encyclopedia" to "the "encyclopdia" where we delete everything that's not about pokemon or meta wikipedia cruft" 166.70.27.1 (talk) 17:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry I didn't notice I wasn't signed in until too late. Hansonc (talk) 17:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Look guys, I'm just here cuz Tom sent me from his Twitter. BUT THAT PROVES THAT THIS ENTRY SHOULDN'T BE DELETED. Tom is so awesome and cool and 'notable' that thousands of folks follow him on Twitter and listen to him spam his podcast. The point is that you're just gonna piss BuzzTown off if you mess with Tom. --Pennyfan87 (talk) 18:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC) — Pennyfan87 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. This user has been blocked for meatpuppeting Kww (talk) 23:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep This should be kept. I have listened to several of the podcasts and the content is varied and notable in and of itself. Its by no means a vanity podcast. Its not only tech but movie reviews, current affairs and best of all an honest and frank exchange of views without a lot of political correctness by an Asian American and an Celtic American. The primary hosts are pros and can make a good cast and say things that they could not say at their day jobs. THey have done 100 casts, so they have stood the test of time in internet years at least. East meets West has been referenced in TWIT, BOL, and MBW, so its not unknown.Rcartwr (talk) 18:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rcartwr (talk • contribs) 18:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC) — Rcartwr (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Comment TWIT, BOL, and MBW? I know the first one would be this WEEK in TECH. Without specific sources I would hazard a guess that these are more trivial mentions on the show than references. Show us proof though and I'd be more than happy to reconsider. --Breno talk 00:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
comment out of curiosity let's say someone could say "EMW was discussed on TWiT episode XXX at YY:ZZ" Does that in fact change anything? It's still pretty much un-citeable (as the Mediawiki software stands) in the article unless it's written in a kludgy manner such as "EMW as discussed on TWiT #xxx at yy:zz is a podcast about..." Would anyone find that article more useful than the current version? If a future version of Mediawiki make it possible to cite a specific point in an audio/video file this article should be updated to include this type of citation. Hansonc (talk) 00:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment There is provision in the {{cite episode}} template to cite a broadcast but it doesn't include a timestamp. But just because there's a mechanism for citation does not get over the notability or verifiability hurdle. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 03:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
comment can you define the difference (in your mind and the hive mind of the "editors" of wikipedia) between a "mention" and a "reference" does Leo Laporte have to use MLA/APA/Chicago format in his verbal comments about EMW to be a "reference"? BTW it's showing your complete lack of knowledge on the subject of podcasts when you don't know the names of 2 of the more popular ones out there BOL & MBW. In my opinion, your entire argument falls apart since your lack of knowledge =/= non notable Hansonc (talk) 05:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment as I said I was hazarding a guess. Withdrawn my speculation. Feel free to provide WP:RS reliable sources; audio, video, text or otherwise, so that other editors may review. --Breno talk 10:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Answer:To answer the question, the difference between a "mention" and a "reference" is that a reference provides a direct and detailed examination of the topic. As an illustration, a magazine article that contained a sentence like "Scott Bakula, former star of Quantum Leap, is now starring in Star Trek:Enterprise. Star Trek:Enterprise, the fifth series in the Star Trek franchise, ..." is quitely likely to be a good reference for Star Trek:Enterprise, but does not count as a reference for Quantum Leap. For Quantum Leap, it's just a mention.Kww (talk) 19:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Two well known and well respected journalists hold a popular podcast. How can this be considered non-trivial? Tom Merritt is broadcast to thousands of people each day via CNET and has been doing so for over three years. Roger Chang, a recent transplant to Revision 3 has worked on some of the most interesting content on the web via Ziff Davis and TechTV. These two guys have more than enough notoriety to deserve a wiki entry about their personal podcast show.Dharrels (talk) 19:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC) — Dharrels (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Strong delete, non-notable podcast. I think I smell socks but that could just be because I haven't changed mine... Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 19:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep While no doubt my initial argument falls under WP:OTHERSTUFF, I think the existence of verifiably notable personalities on a show provides notability to a work. For instance, if a radio personality like Paul Harvey had a second radio show, doesn't that make the second show notable by the prescence of Harvey alone? That argument may be faulty, but I'm not intimately familiar with all of the precedents of WP. Mhudson3 (talk) 20:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Sockpuppetry aside, there is no notability for the podcast, and I don't see the limited notability of the creators as elevating this podcast to that status.Kww (talk) 22:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
    • comment Seriously? Did you really have to call people who don't want to see the standard "delete rather than create" wikipedia mentality win out every time sockpuppets? Let's ASSume good faith here. They could be, you know, actual users of wikipedia knowledge instead of "editors" deleters of wikipedia knowledge. Hansonc (talk) 23:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Comment Just as yourself Hansonc, please assume good faith of the editors who don't share the same view as you. As the nominator of this article, I put this article into review because I don't think it warrants an article in an encyclopedia. I do not want every article deleted on here. As for supporting create over delete, how about creating content in the article explaining why this particular podcast is notable. Please keep discussion to this particular article and not the entire encyclopedia as there is discussion elsewhere for that. --Breno talk 01:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete a quick trawl through a sample from 12,500 Google hits shows no independent evidence of notability, and the onus lies on the defenders of the article to provide it. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 23:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
    • comment You do understand that Google searches don't turn up references in audio and or video right? and that the places that EMW are most likely to be discussed are in audio and video podcasts since those are the mediums in which the hosts work, right? Hansonc (talk) 05:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I know how to find reliable sources, thank you. As a researcher, I've been doing it for over thirty years now. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 06:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • comment Sorry I didn't mean to come off as I appear to have. But I just wanted to point out that a text search for audio means absolutely nothing and should be ignored as useless to the conversation. Hansonc (talk) 17:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Text results have everything to do with determining notability. Just because the podcast produces its content in audio does not mean that the independent, reliable sources need to be in the same format. Podcasts have been featured on tv, in the papers, and magazines. In my comment below are some examples of other podcasts appearing in well-respected publications. --Breno talk 00:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • comment Meaning no disrespect, but I ran "East Meets West podcast" and got several reviews and diggs of various EMW casts.Rcartwr (talk) 18:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


  • Comment I have reformatted the KEEPs to Keep as there is no need for shouting. I notice now after five Keeps not one has addressed nomination concerns of how this article meets WP:WEB notability requirements. Those who wish to keep, I suggest go back and read this guideline and state how the podcast meets these requirements, or why this guideline should not apply. Also, please be civil in this discussion and WP:NPA no personal attacks. Thankyou. --Breno talk 01:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
    • comment I've read WP:WEB. It's broken just like most of the AFD rules and they will remain broken as long as it is easier for a deletion than a keep on every single AFD Hansonc (talk) 05:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Comment Editors are more than welcome to discuss their reasoning why the WP:WEB guideline is "broken" over on the talk page. WEB explicitly covers podcasting articles in its content. As I said previously, it is still a just guideline and a generally accepted standard amongst editors, and is open to exception. However, there is no evidence given why this article should be exempt of WEB and therefore still applies. Thankyou. --Breno talk 10:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per Wikipedia:Verifiability which states, "articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Since all sources used are from the podcast itself and a Google search isn't turning up anything that meets Wikipedia:Reliable sources, it fails this essential guideline. --Farix (Talk) 02:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • comment Did you overlook the other shows cited eariler? I would argure that the standards for podcasts need to be revisited. As metioned eariler, Wikipedia is a resource to explore cutting edge ideas and works such as podcasts. I would argue that any podcast that has longevity, consistancy and community support should not be put on the chopping block because someone does not think it has a place. Rcartwr (talk) 18:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I looked for sources that could pass WP:SOURCES. That, however, exclude podcasts as they are unreliable as sources because they are self-published. Reliable sources are essential for any article to pass any of the notability criteria. --Farix (Talk) 18:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • comment Farix, thank you for the reply and the cite. I see where you are coming from, however that standard basicly excludes almost all "new media". Ir is ironic that Wikipedia has such an "old media" mindset. I still believe that this standard WP:SOURCES needs to be revised to take the current reality into account. How would that be done?Rcartwr (talk) 22:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • The reason "new media" is excluded is because almost all of it is self-published. And all the warts, unreliability, and bias that goes along with being self-published. --Farix (Talk) 23:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • comment you have an obvious bias against anything that smells of "new media". I hate the echo-chamber that is the blag-o-sphere too but 99.99% of podcasts/blogs/whatever the next big thing is are not going to get written up in the New York Times that's just the way it is. Listenership/viewership/mindshare and host/author notability are the only valid ways to judge notability in the case of "new media" . Old media (which you appear to have judged to be the only valid sources for notability) doesn't cover the goings on of "new media" for a number of reasons 1) Podcasts and blogs compete for people's attention with old media companies. 2)"new media" is much more tightly focused than old media and old media isn't going to waste TV time or column inches covering topics with smaller interested audiences. We're stuck with self-published sources to define notability of "new media" because that's the world we live in now. I don't want to sound like all "new media" is equal but in this case EMW has been discussed on This_Week_in_Tech, MacBreak_Weekly, Buzz_Out_Loud and DL.TV all pretty reliable sources in my book. Hansonc (talk) 17:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment those articles appear to be about podcasting, not specific podcasts. I think we all agree that podcasting is notable. The question is how does one prove that a specific podcast is or is not "notable" 216.250.34.63 (talk) 03:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC) You'd think I'd pay attention to whether or not I was logged in... Hansonc (talk) 03:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Articles supplied discuss specific podcasts and mention them by name. I'm not going to list them as I try not to be biased towards particular shows. The point is independent, well-respected media does discuss specific podcast shows in detail. Now before I get too far off topic, I cannot find any independent, well-respected media sources for this podcast. East Meets West. --Breno talk 06:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment 'And you probably won't for most podcasts listed in Wikipedia now, or in the future, that would be considered notable in the podcasting realm. That doesn't mean they're not notable. Podcasting is not yet to the level of old media, obviously, and only a handful of the most prominent podcasts will likely get attention. Personally I'm of the opinion that the rules should be such that if it has been discussed in some analytic fashion in a notable work (book, old media, article, etc) OR if it is run by a Notable personality (as Roger Chang and Tom Merritt are), then it is, in itself, notable. Proving notability outside that would be difficult. Mhudson3 (talk) 13:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Clearing reply indents. --Breno talk 15:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment When nominating this article for deletion I had no idea how much fuss this would cause. Doing a quick word count tells me that over six East Meets West articles could have been written with the amount of deletion discussion that has gone on. That aside, this diff shows how little has been changed on the article to address deletion concerns. It all comes down to the fact that this show simply lacks notability and reliable sources to merit an encyclopedia article at this time. Thanks. --Breno talk 08:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Under current WP standards, yes. I think what needs to be addressed, however, are those same standards and that's why deletion should be held until they are re-assessed by whatever committee is appropriate. Again, we're talking about a work of notable personalities, which I don't think anyone has addressed. Mhudson3 (talk) 14:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

::*Comment The wording for WP:WEB has explicitly listed podcasts within its scope since January 2006. Browsing the talk page October 2007 it was brought up weither iTunes and other "host" websites should be considered respected and/or indepentent of a podcast. The discussion over there has been left open since. Getting back to East Meets West, regardless of WEB this article still completely lacks WP:RS reliable sources. As WP:V policy clearly states; If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. I think I now rest my case on this one. Kind regards. --Breno talk 15:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

  • comment The problem is unless the podcast in question is HUGELY popular enough to attract the attention of old media companies (or is produced by an old media company such as NPR) it is virtually IMPOSSIBLE for a podcast to meet WP:Web based on the fact that all WP:Web will regard as a "reliable" source is if it's old media.

On a related note according to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Podcasting "For a podcast to be notable, it must have at least two of the following requirements:

  1. At least 100 subscribers on Feedburner's count, or 100 Diggs on Digg.com.
  2. Some sort of news coverage from a notable news source.
  3. Sponsored by notable corporation or group.
  4. Hosted by a notable or famous individual or group. "

EMW passes #1 (http://digg.com/search?search=east+meets+west&section=podcasts&process=1) and #4. They don't list feedburner stats on their webpage but I've heard them discuss listener numbers on the podcast and if I recall correctly it was over 100 as well which would mean that #1 is passed twice. As I've argued repeatedly, #2 is almost impossible for the average podcast to meet and not everyone wants to meet #3. -Hansonc (talk) 20:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment I'm trying my best to assume good faith here Hansonc, but you clearly missed the preceeding line before quoting WP:PODCAST: There is currently a proposal to append/replace WP:WEB requirements, currently being discussed on the talk page of this WikiProject. It is definitely not an agreed guideline on Wikipedia, and the community beyond this WikiProject have not had a chance to discuss or decide. I suggest you read the two talk page archives for the discussion. PODCAST has had that notability proposal up there for a very long time, and there is definitely no concensus at the moment to promote it any further. I'm beginning to think about taking it off the project main page, but I have hopes someday someone will come along and work on the proposal on hiatus and hopefully fix it. Till then WEB still applies, and your point makes no mention of failing WP:RS reliable sources. You're more than welcome to join the wikiproject if you wish. Thankyou. --Breno talk 00:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • comment actually you're right I did miss that as I skimmed the article. My bad. Since only a very small subset of podcasts can meet the arcane WP:RS (seriously Wikipedia is among the original "web 2.0" sites and it doesn't accept anything that's not dead tree as a reliable source?) standards this needs to be fixed. Hopefully before this and every other podcast article gets pointlessly deleted. -Hansonc (talk) 04:36, 11 January 2008 (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.