Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jawbone Radio

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. Apart from the sock/meatpuppets, users willing to keep failed to reply to counterarguments evoking Wikipedia's policies.--Húsönd 04:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jawbone Radio

Non-notable podcast fails WP:WEB. It was selected as a podcast pick by BBC radio in 2005, but I'd assert that that is not sufficient to meet our notability guidelines. Alphachimp 02:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - 50,800 Google Hits. [1] --Ineffable3000 04:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

  I really don't think 50800 is that many, and that doesn't make it specifically satisfy WP:WEB. Alphachimp 05:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete fails WP:WEB. Sharkface217 04:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Sharkface217. MER-C 06:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Many Google results.--Meno25 08:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

  Again, how does this make it notable? Alphachimp 08:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, fails WP:MUSIC. I don't see why if it gets a lot Google hits then its notable. It really depends, as not all the hits you get on Google are relavant. No way this can be verified with reliable sources. This is non-notable at all. Terence Ong 10:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable. --InShaneee 17:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - per Mark "Mr. X" Delfs & Just Julie Delfs--Jawbone was one of the very first Podcasts I listened to and actually enjoyed. They are the epitome of Podcasting and should be kept on Wikipedia. Not many shows out there have done the sheer amount and breadth of shows that Len and Nora have done. Futhermore, Len took the time to actually do sketches and drawings of the major Podcasters for FREE, for them to use as their artwork in iTunes. Please give them the satisfaction of having a Wikipedia article which really is a very simple thing to ask for!

  How does this meet WP:WEB? Alphachimp 09:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - Jawbone sets the bar for podcasting as one of the highest quality (both in content and in production)podcasts that exists on the Internet. You cannot judge podcasts by hits from any search engine or static source when determining notability. Podcasts, by definition, rely on RSS feeds. If you're going to criticize an entry in Wikipedia, at least be familiar and educated with the entry's background and source. If Jawbone isn't notable, then neither is any podcast or new media venue. It's absurd that this discussion is even being made. People that believe this podcast shouldn't be part of Wikipedia are simply showing their ignorance, and the editors shouldn't fold to ignorance. ----charleyw 05:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)charleyw

  I'd appreciate it if you Assumed Good Faith and refrained from personal attacks. Remember WP:NPA. You are welcome to nominate any other article for deletion. Alphachimp 09:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - Len and Nora are very influential and well-known in the podcasting community. In addition, Len's art graces many other podcasts.--68.98.118.16 05:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

  How does this satisfy WP:WEB? Alphachimp 09:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - Jawbone Radio is entered here at Wikipedia Calvin and Hobbes regarding Jawbones interview/audio documentary titled "In Search of Bill Watterson". This alone is most note worthy simply because Jawbone has been recognized and substantiated within Wikipedia already as to making a substantial contribution to the legacy of Calvin and Hobbes by Bill Watterson. Thus Jawbone Radio has made a significant contribution to the world of cartooning and podcasting and is a notable entry to Wikipedia based on Wikipedia's own recognition and acceptance of Jawbones Multimedia contribution to the Calvin and Hobbes legacy. --74.38.18.241 08:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)Steve

  Comment: Jawbone never interviewed Bill Waterson. Even if they did, however, they would not satisfy the WP:WEB guidelines for notability. 09:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

  Comment: However, Jawbone is notably listed within Calvin and Hobbes as a contribution to Bill Watterson's legacy. Therefore you are calling Wikipedia a trivial on-line publication thus not meeting WP:WEB So is Wikipedia trivial or non-trivial based on it's own WP:WEB policy? --74.38.18.241 00:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)Steve

  Comment Can I just cite this article to prove this article? This reasoning is entirely circular....it could be used to prove anything. Thanks for suggesting the Watterson article, however. I'll be removing the non-notable podcast reference. Alphachimp 04:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

  Comment Podcast episode was Boing Boinged[2] on November 3, 2005Nobbynees 18:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

  Comment So are you concluding from this discussion that that particular podcast episode is not interesting as an extermal link to someone who would want to see more about Bill Watterson and Calvin and Hobbes? Should we also conclude that any references at all to a non-notable podcast should be considered invalid no matter how relevant it is to a particular article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nobbynees (talk • contribs)

  You should check out WP:EL. For what it's worth, maybe you should actually check the history before making personal attacks against me on your blog. I could not find and therefore did not remove the reference. Alphachimp 15:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

  What was the personal attack that I made? Was it me calling you "Chimpy?" I hardly think that is a personal attack. I was basing a vindictive reference on the blog from your above comment about removing the external link from the Calvin and Hobbes article. How is one to infer that it is nothing but vindictive?Nobbynees 15:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

  Check out WP:AGF and WP:NPA. Thanks. Alphachimp 15:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - If WikiPedia has Dawn_and_Drew, it has to keep Jawbone Radio. Similar concept (couple podcast), maybe less "popular", but much more funny, interesting, kinder and warmer instead.

  You are welcome to nominate that article for deletion as well. Alphachimp 09:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per Sharkface217 --RaiderAspect 09:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: As of December 5, 2006, this article was linked by this podcast's blog, with encouragement to "please let the powers that be know how you feel". Remember that this AfD is not a vote, merely a discussion to establish consensus regarding the notability of this podcast. Alphachimp 09:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - Just looking through almost ANY search engine alone should make you realize you must be on drugs or some bad mind altering substance to believe this entry should be deleted. Come on people, don't be as stupid as some of you seem. [3] --dcolanduno 04:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC) — dcolanduno (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 04:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC) (UTC).

  I'd appreciate it if you refrained from the personal attacks. You are reminded that AfD is not a vote and that repeated statements of opinions do not increase their value. Alphachimp 13:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - Jawbone was the subject of an article on wired.com[4] and the subject of an article in the Cleveland Plain Dealer on 3/15/05 (I cannot link to this article because the Plain Dealer does not maintain web archives back to this date, however the article was scanned and published on the Jawbone Radio site here [5]) which satisfies #1 of WP:WEB because the content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. Jensolomon 14:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC) — Jensolomon (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. :::Jawbone was also the subject of an article in the Lakewood Observer.[6], thus satisfying [WP:WEB]Jensolomon 15:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

  Comment. It's an entirely trivial one sentence reference. Alphachimp 14:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

  Comment. Link to photograph of front page story in Cleveland Plain Dealer as cited by user Jensolomon [7]Nobbynees 14:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

  Comment. That it is "entirely trivial" is merely your opinion. The [WP:WEB] guidelines do not state how many times the subject needs to be mentioned in the article. Wired magazine is a non-trivial published work. The Cleveland Plain Dealer is the largest Ohio newspaper, thus making it also non-trivial.Jensolomon 14:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

  Comment Uh, the wired reference is a single sentence. Alphachimp 14:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

  Woops, two lines. Alphachimp 14:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

  My point about the wired reference is that it is basically inconsequential. It is not an in-depth report. Rather, it is a brief mention of the podcast featuring purely basic information. Alphachimp 04:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

  My point about the wired reference is that a publication as large as Wired magazine would not have contacted Jawbone radio if they were not relevant force in the podcasting industry. If Jawbone relevant enough for a magazine with paid subscriptions and its related website, than it is surely relevant enough for Wikipedia.Jensolomon 16:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

  I'm not going to say that a mention in wired is not a good thing for Jawbone. It's not, however, sufficient to meet criterion 1, simply because it's just a fairly basic listing. Alphachimp 19:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - Jawbone was the subject of an article in the Medina Gazette[8] in February 2006 which satisfies #1 of WP:WEB because the content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.Nobbynees 14:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC) — Nobbynees (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  Comment The source you are citing is on the jawbone site. I hardly think that satisfies #1. Alphachimp 14:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

  Comment If you read the blog post, it clearly states: --what follows is a transcript. Unfortunately, there are no digital copies online to read.--. Would a photograph or scan of the article in question be suffice to satisfy WP:WEB? One would be lead to believe that your mind has already been made up, Alphachimp, before this discussion has even started.Nobbynees 15:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

  Comment I nominated it for deletion. The same goes for you, obviously. Alphachimp 15:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

  Comment You never answered my question. Since digital versions do not exist, would a scan or photograph of the orginal article be sufficient to prove criteria 1?Nobbynees 18:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

  First off, they'd be copyright violations. That said, I thought this was the exact same article as was in the other places. (Just syndicated around.) Alphachimp 19:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

  No, the article that appears on the Jawbone Radio site that is referenced above is an article that appeared in the Medina Gazette, a paper that does not maintain digital copies of their stories. The digital version on the Jawbone site is the only one that exists. The story uses Jawbone Radio as the donut story that helps tell the bigger story about podasting.Nobbynees 20:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - Cleveland Plain Dealer article on 3/15/05 was picked up by Newhouse News Service[9] and republished in several markets across the US.Nobbynees 14:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

  Comment. WP:WEB says that it needs to have multiple non-trivial published references. I don't really see that being published (not being on the main site, there really isn't any way to be sure) and it's only one reference. Alphachimp 14:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

  Comment. Digital archiving does not exist for the story on online news sites. Links to photographs and scans of articles that appeared in Hunstville, AL[10] Mobile, AL[11] and Easton PA [12].Nobbynees 15:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC) — Nobbynees (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  It's still just one article, albeit syndicated across several places. Alphachimp 04:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - Len Peralta, one half of the couple behind Jawbone, was an early presence in the visual side of podcasting, creating many of the logos and images used by podcasters in the ID3 tags of their shows, and on their websites. Jawbone is hugely influential; a page on the podcast directory, Podcast Pickle, shows their influences in the world of podcasting and lists many podcasters that were inspired by Jawbone. And throughout numerous interviews and affiliations with singer Jonathan Coulton, and writer/comedian John Hodgeman, Jawbone is a significant contributor to the pop culture of podcasting. bibbott —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.33.154.117 (talk • contribs)

  Comment I'm not quite sure how that goes to satisfying WP:WEB Alphachimp 14:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - Ben Rollman WP:WEB qualifications state that an article must meet 1 of the 3 criteria. The third being, "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.[7]" Wouldn't being distributed through an news aggregator or podcast directory (such as iTunes) qualify this and any other podcast that is listed as fulfilling the minimum criteria? Would including that link (as stated by the quailifications) be enough? Given the additional print sources, the site creator's artistic contributions to a premier podsafe musician as well as numerous other podcasts, I think it fits the web criteria just fine as laid out by the rules given. Also, if it helps the point of Self Promotion, I was the original creator of this article, the owners have since edited for mostly clarification and additional information.xadrian 15:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)xadrian

  I really didn't assume that there was any difficulty with self-promotion in the article. iTunes distributes a lot of content, podcasts included, so I don't really think that's relevant to meeting WP:WEB. Coincidentally, I don't think appearing in a news aggregrator goes to satisfying WP:WEB, but I'd be interested to hear opinions to the contrary. Alphachimp 15:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Jawbone Radio appears on pages 53-54 of the book "Tricks of the Podcasting Masters"[13] by Rob Walch and Mur Lafferty referenced by Table 3:3 - Popular Couple Casts Nobbynees 16:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC) — Nobbynees (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Comment The book is published by a relatively unheard of vanity press. Alphachimp 04:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Actually that is not true at all. Que Publishing is the Tech Part of Pearson Education Press. The Same Publisher that owns Sams, Peachpit, Wharton and others. From their site (QUE specialises in the area of applications for computing. It is one of the largest computer book publishers in the world and sets the standard for superior tutorial reference products, covering all major computer and Internet applications at every user level. ). Does not sound like a small vanity shop to me. Leo Laporte also has his books published by Que. Additionally Tricks of the Podcasting Masters, was just selelcted as one of the Top 10 Reference Books (number 3) for 2006 by the Editors at Amazon.com. Get your Facts straight before dissing something. Just Google Que Publishng. podcast411 11:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

  Forgive me if I offended you, but it's simply not a name that I had heard. I'd question the notability (non-triviality were that a word) of the particular publication. I was unable to find its specific listing on amazon. Perhaps you could provide readers of this discussion with a link? Alphachimp 19:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

  It is amusing that a book you've never heard of is deemed irrelevant. Following that logic, if you'd never heard of War and Peace, that would be irrelevant and Tolstoy would be rolling in his grave. Here's the link to the publication on Amazon.[14]

  Great Point on Tolstoy. Here's the link to the Top 10 Reference books for 2006 according to the Editors at that little book store called Amazon.[15]

• Keep Hosts Len and Nora were written into a song by Creative Commons musician Jonathan Coulton.[16]Nobbynees 21:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC) — Nobbynees (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Comment How does this satisfy any of our notability guidelines? Alphachimp 04:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment.The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. This criterion includes published works in all forms... I would assume this would also include songs written with the hosts of the show and referencing the show, therefore fulfilling requirement one. I ask you, AlphaChimp. how many songs have been written referencing you personally? Must one have several songs referencing them and their show before it is considered a fulfillment of the criteria #1? Nobbynees 17:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

  Honestly, whether or not any music is written about me is entirely irrelevant to this discussion. Creative commons music would seem both trivial and non-published. Don't get me wrong, I think it's great that people are recording music, and I'm sure their song is awesome...I'm just saying that there is a substantive difference between that and get mentioned in a notable published work. Alphachimp 19:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

  I wonder if all the Creative Commons musicians and authors would feel the same way about your assessment of their work being trivial. I assert that simply because a piece of music isn't backed by SONY or Time Warner, that it is still a published work under Creative Commons, thusly fulfilling criteria 1. I would certainly like to hear Creative Commons opinion on this.Nobbynees 20:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Art by Dave Devries based on art by Len and Nora's children (which was created during a visit where Dave was interviewed on Jawbone) was exhibited in a museum in NYC earlier this year, and published in a book by that artist and featured on his website. Dave Devries was interviewed on the show. [17] Yipiyuk 6 December 2006

• Comment: How does the alleged notability of their childrens' artwork have any relevance to this AfD discussion? Alphachimp 04:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Holy sockpuppets and meatpuppets, Batman! Now that I've said that, at this point in time, no podcast is by itself sufficient enough to satisfy WP:WEB. It doesn't matter if it has its own theme song (or Christmas Song) unless the song itself meets WP:MUSIC. Of the sources that are cited, only one is independent of the podcast (thus not qualifying for "multiple non-trivial published works that are independent of the site itself). While it can be argued that the BBC citation would qualify under guideline #2 of WP:WEB, a look at the linked article clearly shows otherwise: it is not one describing any awards but an article recommending six podcasts "worth listening to" (in the same sense of recommending six restaurants for a festive Friday). As for guideline #3, since the Newhouse News Service is redlinked, I cannot conclude that it (NNS) satisfies "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. Thus it fails under WP:WEB - Delete. B.Wind 00:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• Followup - Newhouse News Service does appear to be notable by itself, but I have found no evidence independent of the podcast (which actually originates from blogspot.com) supporting the article's assertion that NNS was actually distributing it (I did find an article discussing Jawbone without mentioning any relationship between the two entities). The last paragraph of the article indicates that Jawbone is self-distributed (via its own Trypod Network). Thus my position is unchanged. B.Wind 00:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - I think the citation of the article in Newhouse News Service was in reference to criteria #1 of WP:WEB, not #3. Dcoulter 04:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

  Yeah, but that's the syndicated article. We've already established that it's the one appearing all over the internet. Alphachimp 04:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• At this point the discussion has been semi-protected to prevernt IP's and new accounts from attempting to improperly influence the proceedings - crz crztalk 03:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep The host of Jawbone Radio was invited to speak on a panel at a Comics Symposium at Lakeland Community College in April 2006 on the above mentioned Calvin and Hobbes podcast [18] on the Watterson podcast. On the panel was former Watterson editor and current VP of Universal Press Syndicate, Lee Salem. This podcast is also worthy of note as it is the only audio interview exisiting with a close member of the Watterson family (his mother). It should be noted that Bill Watterson has steadfastly refused to give interviews to any press.

• Keep Jawbone radio is a rather notable podcast for its episode about Bill Watterson alone. Len got an interview with Bill's mother, which is an amazing thing given the high degree of privacy Bill maintains. The article is fairly well-written -- certainly not "stubbish" -- and more information could probably be added to it as well. It may be borderline as far as WP:WEB is concerned, but that aside, I see no reason to delete this perfectly good informative article. Mike1 21:55, 9 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.