Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geekbrief
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 no consensus Note that article has been considerably rewritten since nomination. W.marsh 20:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Geekbrief
Non-notable podcast fails the WP:WEB notability guideline. Alphachimp 04:23, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. MER-C 05:05, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, non-notable podcast. JIP | Talk 18:43, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep. I just came to wikipedia specifically to look up Geekbrief, to see a "deletion" notice. Mrjeff 12:36, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
- Um, ok.... How does that satisfy WP:WEB? Alphachimp 22:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- I don't know, I want to read about the item in question, and therefore am not an expert in it. I'm mearly pointing out I personally want to read the article. Perhaps WP:WEB is too strong?Mrjeff 23:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- Simply liking an article is not a legitimate argument for keeping an article, and WP:WEB is a generally accepted guideline for notability. If you'd like to read the article, feel free to save it to your hard drive or print it. Alphachimp 02:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- How about a review in the paper copy of MicroMart? I'll add a reference later today. Mrjeff 08:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- I would assume that that would be purely "trivial coverage", as is found in nearly all references to specific podcasts. Alphachimp 08:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- Do you mean you expect that review is trivial coverage, or all reviews are trivial coverage? A copy can be found at [1] Mrjeff 11:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- At a purely cursory glance, that website appears to be somewhat inconsequential. Alphachimp 15:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- I would agree that website itself is inconsequential, sorry I should have explained better. The article given there is a copy of the review in Micromart, which I don't believe is "Trivial coverage" myself. Mrjeff 20:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- Honestly the review seems somewhat cavalier. Even if we do accept that as a legitimate published work, it's still only one published source, isn't it? Alphachimp 14:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- One of my readers, asked me to add my article to the GeekBrief.tv Wikipedia entry. I can see from the discussion here that printed copies apparently help lend some credibility. While it seems odd for Wikipedia to take that stance, and most likely it is me incorrectly reading a discussion list that is going to get me in trouble, I hope that is not the case. My syndicated column appears in a local Chicago area paper that reaches 200K readers. I added a link to the column's web home, and indicated that it is one of the most popular archived articles. Wikipedia has been mentioned in my column a few times, [here] and [here], both of which also appeared in print too.--24.15.79.244 17:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- Honestly the review seems somewhat cavalier. Even if we do accept that as a legitimate published work, it's still only one published source, isn't it? Alphachimp 14:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- I would agree that website itself is inconsequential, sorry I should have explained better. The article given there is a copy of the review in Micromart, which I don't believe is "Trivial coverage" myself. Mrjeff 20:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- At a purely cursory glance, that website appears to be somewhat inconsequential. Alphachimp 15:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- Do you mean you expect that review is trivial coverage, or all reviews are trivial coverage? A copy can be found at [1] Mrjeff 11:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- I would assume that that would be purely "trivial coverage", as is found in nearly all references to specific podcasts. Alphachimp 08:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- How about a review in the paper copy of MicroMart? I'll add a reference later today. Mrjeff 08:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- Simply liking an article is not a legitimate argument for keeping an article, and WP:WEB is a generally accepted guideline for notability. If you'd like to read the article, feel free to save it to your hard drive or print it. Alphachimp 02:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- I don't know, I want to read about the item in question, and therefore am not an expert in it. I'm mearly pointing out I personally want to read the article. Perhaps WP:WEB is too strong?Mrjeff 23:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- Um, ok.... How does that satisfy WP:WEB? Alphachimp 22:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep. I looked up Geekbrief specifically, and it's one of the featured channels in the Democracy player. Tapo 13:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
- How does that satisfy WP:WEB? Alphachimp 22:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete NO reliable sources to base this on, most of the references are to the podcast's website. Fails WP:WEB by a fair amount. Inner Earth 21:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- Some more links have been added.. do these pass WP:WEB? Mrjeff 10:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep I feel that The MSNBC show that had Geekbrief on it is good enough. I feel that the several references and this apperance are enough. MrMacMan 23:58, 6 December 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.
