Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LostCasts

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, no significance established. Note that I am reversing the closure made by Wikizach (talk · contribs) because a) it was nothing but a head count and b) the user in question is not an administrator and should not be closing discussions where the outcome isn't obvious.--SB | T 03:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] LostCasts

Non notable podcast for the TV show Lost.-- Jtrost (T | C | [1]) 14:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Non notable podcast. Seems to be an advertising campaign. --Peephole 19:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Very good Podcast and worthy wiki entry. The podcast does exactly what it says on the tin and is certainly of note, even one of the Lost cast has phoned into the podcast —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.40.107.167 (talk • contribs) .— Possible single purpose account: 86.40.107.167 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic..
  • Strong Keep This is the podcast that has frequently been referred to as the "podcast for the serious Lost fan" by the Lost community and even by other popular Lost podcasters. This is not a podcast that is based on reviewing episodes and entertaining (and there are some excellent podcasts which do those things very well;) this is the one podcast that deals with Lost mythology and literary references on a deep level. It involves considerable time and research by these intelligent and dedicated podcasters who also inspire their listeners to research the mythological and literary references within Lost. This podcast was one of the very first Lost podcasts and has remained a pillar of the Lost community. That alone makes them noteworthy. Then add to that, their distinction as the podcast that created the standard for the "grad school level Lost podcast" and their "notability" within the Lost community is cemented. These podcasters put a lot of time and research into each show (often quoting wikipedia; thereby boosting the popularity and growth of Wikipedia.) Their i-tunes standing testifies to this. How can they be considered anything but one of the most outstanding and noteworthy of all Lost podcasts? }This is my first post on Wikipedia. However it is not a single purpose account. I have frequently used Wikipedia (and yes, I learned about it from LostCasts) for research. It is the first place I turn to find answers or to learn about something. I think Wikipedia is as close to a universal all *purpose library as this world can ever know. I have never posted before because I never felt like I had anything important to add. I do today. LostCasts is an excellent podcast and deserves to be noted as an important part of the Lost community. I am proud to make this my first post. MrsB 20:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC) — MrsB (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. }
  • Strong Keep This podcast is the best Lost podcast to date. It holds discussions on theories, themes and characters along with book discussions. It is intelligent and a major contributor to the Lost community. This podcast is better than most because it delves deeper into literary themes than any other Lost podcast. I have known people who, through listening to Lostcasts, have become interested in different kids of literature. My neice who previously hated to read, became interested in reading because the podcast mentioned several books that have a relationship to Lost. She has since read Watership Down and loved it and is now reading other books. And podcast that inspires children to read cannot be bad and others should have a chance to learn about it on Wikipedia.Laureletsage 04:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Laureletsage (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
  • Keep The article is notable through general information, biography, and popularity within ABC's Lost pod casting community. This discussion is stalling any new information that would make this a more informative and indepth article. If being one of the most educational, informative, and popular media out there doesn't deserve notoriety, then wikipedia needs some serious spring cleaning. Please explain yourself in more depth, instead of just writing "not notable". Also, noting on people's non-activity, does not render their opinion "non notable" either, wether they heard it on a forum or not. Vondruke 18:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)— Possible single purpose account: Vondruke (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
  • Keep This podcast is quite well produced, extremely informative, and entertaining. Quite "notable" indeed. rkdarwin13 — rkdarwin13 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep This podcast is huge in the Lost community. It is generally regarded as the most informative and on-topic.It always ranks within the top 3 downloaded Lost podcasts, often being number 1.Jorge Garcia has participated in the podcast. The show has a large listener base, this is not at all an advertisement. The producers have recently been asked to speak at Dragoncon. Wikipediastar 17:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep This podcast is essentially canon amongst Lost podcasts. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.203.78.46 (talk • contribs) . — Possible single purpose account: 69.203.78.46 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
  • Delete Looks to be a fan site podcast. No notability. Wildthing61476 16:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable podcast. Nuttah68 10:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep One of the most popular LOST fan podcasts being published. Frequently in the iTunes top 100. 9:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.86.178.202 (talk • contribs) . — Possible single purpose account: 207.86.178.202 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
  • Keep Not even close to 'just another fan podcast'. Notable for the following:
    • pioneering an unique non-recap review style - with the exception of the literary reviews in the programming break, the program will not recap or summarize any plot material
    • the conduct of extensive philosophical, literary and technical research for each edition
    • provision of the podcasts and hompage enitely without recourse to advertising revenue
    • the LOST actor Jorge Garcia has contributed audio comments twice. The content of those contributions indicates, as he has posted on the Fuselage website, that he listens to each edition
    • extenisve listener contributions and collaboration with respect to theory development, especially by listeners in locations featured in LOST locations outside the United States: e.g. Sydney and the United Kingdom
These points can be verified by listening to each of the podcasts that are avilable on the LOSTCasts site or ITunes and reviewing the comments sections for each podcast. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.227.230.22 (talk • contribs) 20:38, 27 August 2006
  • Delete. This article is not notable, and is obviously just trying to use Wikipedia to increase listenership. -- PKtm 21:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. This article is a great a great article for a great podcast. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.135.200.180 (talk • contribs) 23:21, 27 August 2006}— Possible single purpose account: 71.135.200.180 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
  • Keep One of the most popular LOST fan podcasts being published. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.221.228.10 (talk • contribs) 21:42, 27 August 2006— Possible single purpose account: 69.221.228.10 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
  • Keep If the criteria for deletion is the claim that this podcast is not notable. Aside from the official podcast this both one of the first and a very popular podcast. They are very intelligent and put on a concise, and relevant show. If the criteria is that it's too much of an advertisement then rather than deleting it, suggest it be fixed. (lostcasts listener) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.171.131.12 (talk • contribs) — Possible single purpose account: 67.171.131.12 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
  • Keep A simple search on Odeo or Itunes will show that this podcast is ranked fairly high for the independent podcast community. Based on the forum that they loosely represent alone is enough to warrant it's relevancy. Also consider when searching itunes for this podcast that it has at present, 52 reviews, where as the official podcast from CBS has 57 if you want to get to basic numbers which should give an idea of popularity. Dellybelly 01:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC) (NULL - Account active for 6 months. Single purpose not warranted.)
  • Delete. Non-notable podcast. No claims of notability have been backed up by reliable sources. The podcast mainpage has a campaign encouraging listeners to join wikiepdia for the sole purpose of voting to keep this article. The article features a link to this site within the prose.--Opark 77 02:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Keep. You people would not know a good podcast if you tripped over it:— Possible single purpose account: 203.192.146.137 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
  • Keep This podcast is listed in the iTunes music store (which can be accessed through the itunes program) as the seventh most popular lost podcast - this is out of over 150 lost podcasts, including several official lostcasts. Alexa traffic results (http://alexa.com/data/details/main?url=lostcasts.com) also ranks the site fairly high. Beyond all that, is the obvious popularity of this show really the reason it should stay? I think the simple fact the producers are being referenced for an upcoming book on the theory gives it some credibility. Of many many podcasts, this appears to the number one strictly theory/spoilers lost podcast (in order of popularity on iTunes). The goal of wikipedia is to expand knowledge. If you're insterested in the show lost as well as podcasts, this is a very notable one and I can't think of a single reason it shouldn't be included.VKX 03:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep For objective opinion, reference the following AP article from May of 2006 on LOST podcasters: http://asap.ap.org/stories/586641.s From the AP article: "If Jay and Jack and Generally Speaking are the undergraduate schools of "Lost" theories and thought, then LOSTCast takes it to the graduate school level, dissecting the show in a way few podcasts even attempt to do. If you want a no frills, hour-long discussion picking apart the meaning of the glow-in-the-dark map in the hatch, this podcast is for you." 216.82.221.164 03:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: 216.82.221.164 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
  • Delete Not notable pod cast Æon Insanity Now!EA! 03:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep This is one of the most popular podcasts in the Lost community. As a fan of Lost who doesn't read any of the boards, I find it indispensable. ~ Mastermelari— Possible single purpose account: Mastermelari (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
  • Keep- very recognisable podcast —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.93.21.34 (talk • contribs) 01:18, 28 August 2006— Possible single purpose account: 195.93.21.34 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
  • Strong Delete: prime example of non-notable fansite/podcast.--LeflymanTalk 07:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep: This podcast appears to be a notable example of a podcast. Keeping this article would maintain the consistency of Wikipedia, as other podcasts such as the Phone Losers of America podcast have not been deleted. LOSTcasts have been dedicated much to the theorizing of LOST. The writers for LOST are often noted for reading fandom sites, and even the show's actors have replied. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.103.222.221 (talk • contribs) 209.103.222.221
  • Keep!!! One of the best podcasts on the Lost tv show and an excellent podcast in general. They engage in intelligent discussions and delve deep into theories and literature references pertaining to he show as well as examining the characters on Lost and they also give concise recaps.66.167.138.155 08:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC) Vargas — Possible single purpose account: 66.167.138.155 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
  • Keep, what harm is it doing to the website, LOSTCasts are the best Lost podcast available, and is a great source of information without spending hours on forums! — Possible single purpose account: 81.152.43.10 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
  • Delete: Poorly-written article. Reads like an advertisement for the podcast. Wikipedia is not an advertisment. - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 10:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep (don't edit this thankyou): The uniqueness of the format is sufficiently noteworthy. If it were the 10th template copy of an established format and addednothign new then yes, it would not meet the standard, but it is patently a groundbreaking approach to online interaction on a topic that itself warrants inclusion. The context of the subject proves this: there are many LOST podcasts, but the vast majority are templated 'fan review' offerings. This podcast is primarily a review and critique of online reaction to the initial medium. It was the first to use this approach. This is precisely the reason why entries such as the one for Tucker Max don't attract delete campaigns. Tucker Max really is unnoteworthy as a participant in his chosen area of activity (online media, with apparant sidelines into fornication, alcoholism and getting sued) but is noteworthy because he was a principal pioneer/early developer (but, interestingly, not even the inventor) of the 'fratire' literary genre. If the LOSTCasts entry were allowed sufficient time to mature, the uniqueness of the format could be properly documented and explained, as could its impact on other on line activities. The fact that it is also very popular is not a disqualifying factor. Many of the 'delete' entries assume (quite wrongly) that popularity of itself raises a presumption in favour of deletion. If that were true, huge chunks of Wikipedia should be cut right now. At the very least, a decision on deletion should be deferred for the balance of this year to allow the question to be reviewed after development of the entry. The entry is far too new and underdeveloped to allow a final decision on deletion at this time. In addition, one really has to ask if this delete campaign has any merit at all? It appears to be based on borderline, subjective views about noteworthiness that really have no means by which they can be tested, and therefore can't provide the rigorous basis required to apply the relevant policies in this case. Besides all that, no one on the Internet has a bullet proof ego, and I certainly include myself in that thought. My point being: would this delete campaign have been prosecuted so viciously if the word 'clueless' had not been used on the LOSTCasts website to refer to some Wikipedia contributors to begin with?--60.227.230.22 12:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The above author has already voted once on this issue. Wildthing61476 13:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)*
  • Comment This is not a 'voting' system - it even says so at the top of the page, viz: 'please note that this is not a vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether an article is suitable for this encyclopedia.'--60.227.230.22 13:32, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Note: The LostCasts website has published this message to its users:

In addition, we cover recent Wikipedia issues. One of our listeners started a LOSTCasts entry, and some clueless users are trying to get it deleted! Help save our Wikipedia entry by visiting this page and telling them to "keep" the entry! Jtrost (T | C | #) 12:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not another fan site; it's meant to be encyclopedic.

Which really doesn't explain how the entry on Lindsay Lohan was ' identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community.' 1. I mean, that piece doesn't exactly look like it was written by her arch enemy now does it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.227.230.22 (talk • contribs)

  • Weak keep Never heard of it, but has 230 links. thanks/MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 17:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Move --as my suggestion at discussion at Lost (TV series), follow precedence of a similar situation, a tv show with an unusually active fan base that has a separate article for further reading: Star Trek further reading. In other words, create Lost further reading, and move content there.--Santaduck 18:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - Encyclopedia is defined as a comprehensive reference work having articles on a broad range of subjects or on numerous aspects of a given field, usually qarranged alphabetically. Encyclopedic is defined as of or typical of an encyclopedia; embracing many subjectives; and comprehensive. Based off of the definition of encyclopedia, it seems that if you are going to include Lost as one of your subjects that it would be just as important to consider Lostcasts as an integral part of referencing the t.v. show. Using this as justification could place this entry under Lost Further Reading.All definitions are taken from Webster's II New College Dictionary (Third Edition). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Melontherocks (talk • contribs) — Possible single purpose account: Melontherocks (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
  • Keep: These guys really know their Lost stuff and deleting this is crazy to say the least - Non notable - you've really hurt me, this entry has to be kept at all costs --User:cherry.j 22:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: 86.135.108.245 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
  • Mild Keep: It is a pretty large NOTIBLE group. Keep WikieZach| talk 22:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Mild Delete. Article, and defenders of the article, competently explain what LostCasts is but fail to suggest its importance/notability. -- Wikipedical 22:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Yes, and the issue is not whether it's a good podcast (it is), or "notable" in terms of effort and results, but whether it's notable for Wikipedia, in the WP:Notability sense. Defenders of the article here (driven to this page by the comments on the LostCasts site) have taken offense by being called not notable, but that's not meant to be an insult. The question is, then, is whether every major fan site should have its own article too. To me, obviously not. So why this one? Again, it's a slippery slope. -- PKtm 00:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment:For what it's worth, the wikipedia page wasn't set up for advertising purposes. The podcasters directed attention to its deletion, which is pretty borderline, but they never set it up. Personally, I think there's a difference between the average fansite, which features recaps, pictures, etc, and the podcasting LOSTcasts does. Podcasting is an inherently more personal, creative endeavor than a regular fansite. It goes beyond a reflection of the original and becomes unique. It's the difference between a photograph and a painting. Does that make this important enough to deserve it's own page? I have no idea. Chunkyrice 13 02:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep There is alot of information yet to be posted in this article and deleting for non-notability is absurd when it is currently not a complete article. Notability in itself is a relevant concept and therefor should not be the sole reason for deleting an obviously popular topic.

Testerer 03:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Strong Keep This podcast is among the most popular of all of them. It was also one of the originals. I don't understand why anyone would suggest this Wiki article for deletion. It's a great podcast, and certainly 'worthy' of having a Wiki article.--BuffyMars 22:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: BuffyMars (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.

Strong Keep Lostcasts is not for every LOST fan, but for someone like me, who is interested in going beyond watching the show, this is a great resource for news, commentary, and fascinating speculation on what is behind the creative curtain for this show. These podcasters have given up a great deal of time to try and offer an entertaining resource that has at times overlapped with the actual production of LOST. The nomination for deletion of this article is spiteful and obviously from someone that wants to be a petty irritant rather than genuinely being concerned with the accurracy of content on wikipedia. I suggest the folks in favor of deletion subscribe to other podcasts and allow the great many listeners to be more than enough validation for an entry here. This entry is not a mere plug for a podcast. This podcast is as valid as a television or radio program and for me is a fabulous wealth of information. Devaluing this by stating it is made by fans is ridiculous. You want people producing a podcast about LOST to love the show enough to do their best. Please do not delete this entry! Micahsherrill 23:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)— Possible single purpose account: [[User:|User:]] ([[User talk:|talk]] • contribs) Micahsherrill has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.

  • This Wikipedia entry is to reconize an entity (Lostcasts) as a program put on by individuals who are fans of another program. It is imporant to document and note worthy organizations such as Lostcasts both for what they do for the community (their listeners) and their contribution to pop culture. Many entries should be deleted from Wikipedia if this entry should be deleted.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Razzledazzleradio (talk • contribs) 04:58, 29 August 2006. — Possible single purpose account: Razzledazzleradio (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
  • Strong Keep: How dare you slander the name of Lostcasts - they are super fans and they educate the listeners on the mythology of Lost, which I haven't seen on any other podcast official or unofficial - they are the top of their game and deleting this article really shows the kind of mentality that some users cannot grasp the intellectuality that Lost requires! --User:cherry.j 20:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: 86.135.108.245 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
  • Keep We're big fans of Wikipedia. Anyone who's listened to our podcasts knows that we often use it as a resource, from The Philadelphia Experiment to Aldous Huxley. I have always had great faith in the concept of Wikipedia, and have defended it on many occasions.
That's why we were honored when, on August 14th, a commenter on our site (Loren), posted that she'd created a Wikipedia entry for us. You can see that comment here. Just a few days ago, a comment on our site let us know that the entry was up for deletion. The reason was that several Wikipedia editors said our podcast was "non-notable."
Yeah, that upset us. We know that we're one of the top LOST fan podcasts out there, but I don't expect everyone to be familiar with us. In defense of the Wikipedia editors, if they had not heard of us, they would have no basis by which to judge our "notability."
I started some bad blood by calling the Wikipedia editors "clueless", which was irresponsible. In fact, Wikipedia editors spend their free time doing something they're passionate about, with no compensation. This is something we can identify with, because that's what we do. But we have to make an argument for our notability. Here's a shot at it:
  • LOSTCasts has appeared regularly in the iTunes top 100 podcasts. We were consistently in the list when season 2 was on the US, beginning in November 2005. Of course, during the off-season, this has been intermittent. One additional item of note is that the iTunes top 100 is not based on total number of subscribers, but on the number of new subscribers within a given amount of time. We'll breach this top 100 again when season 3 starts.
  • Most podcasters don't publish subscriber statistics, but we do have a glimpse from an AP article published in May of 2006. LOSTCasts is also cited in this article. In terms of numbers, The Jay and Jack podcast subscribers are cited in this AP article at 13,000 subscribers. In the month of May, our subscribers started the month at 18,000 and grew to 22,000. This would make us the most popular LOST fan podcast being published at that time. Of course, this is the only window since that we've had into other LOST podcast subscriber numbers. But everyone would agree that once the Transmission left, it was really just us, and Jay and Jack.
  • ABC and LOST listen to us. As noted in the articles of deletion, Jorge Garcia, who plays "Hurley", is a regular listener and has called into the show numerous times. As well, we have been personally contacted by a number of other official LOST folks.
As I said, we're honored to have had a Wikipedia article written for us, and we'd love to see it stay. But it's up to the Wikipedia community to accept or reject claims of notability.
If you are going to comment on the articles for deletion, make it a logical argument for notability, not a flame. If you don't believe we're Wikipedia material, then say so! That's your right... and it's what makes Wikipedia great.
The outcome won't affect the future of LOSTCasts. We validate our notability through the voice of our listeners. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.136.57.214 (talk • contribs) .— Possible single purpose account: 69.136.57.214 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
  • Comment re: podcast notability: It appears that podcasts have a disadvantage under WP:WEB, as a fairly new medium that is relatively rarely featured as content articles in the traditional press, thereby decreasing chances for notability. 1) WP:WEB notes that Category:Awards may suggest notability, but there are no podcast-specific award categories, (and if any are added, they should be added to WP:WEB IMHO). 2) Traffic ranking sites such as Alexa (used in older versions of WP:WEB) also do not accurately reflect podcast traffic, which may be directly downloaded by music applications rather than web browsers. In general, I am left wondering if discussion for a WP:PODCAST article would be of merit (but I'm too lazy to embark on that endeavor), but consider that if one were to exist, it seems that an iTunes Top 100 ranking would be a reasonable criterion for podcast notability, a criterion that does not exist for other media in the umbrella category of WP:WEB. Yes this vote has attracted an array of single-purpose accounts and puppets voting "strong keep", but look beyond that and consider what podcast-specific criteria you would choose for notability. (My previous comment moved here with minor copy edit) --Santaduck 20:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: For everyone out there who is unfamiliar with this pdocast, Lostcasts is one of the best podcasts out there for the hit drama "Lost". They have been called the "Thinking Man's Lost podcast" and I strongly agree with that description. Starting way back in September of 2005, they were already delving into possible mythological connections with the constellation Apollo and eastern religious connections to the usage of Dharma and the phrase "Namaste". If anything, this Lost podcast deserves a page, and due to the visibility caused by this deletion attempt, I believe many of us can add much more content to the page now. If you guys are reading this, I just want to say "It's a wonderful podcast and keep up the great work! Thanks!" --Nukem945 01:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)— Possible single purpose account: Nukem945 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
  • Delete -- fails WP:WEB and WP:NOT. Meatpuppetfest. Morton devonshire 02:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep This podcast should definatly have it's own page. I listen to many different Lost podcasts and LOSTcasts is a very strong contendor. It always has a very high level of discussion, think of it as a 500 level Masters class opposed to an 100 level Undergrad class. I think that if this podcast gets any negativity associated with it, the reason is that it may be above their heads and people are lashing out. It should stay. - 222.7.5.133 11:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)Katmarie24 — 222.7.5.133 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Strong Keep This is one of the most indepth podcasts around, they provide some of the best content and have great insite and comments. It should stay. - [[User:lostinlindenhurst] 07:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)lostinlindenhurst— 207.250.117.90 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep - possible merge: This is a great podcast which goes beyond just fanboy drooling. For heavens sakes, they are doing book reviews of books seen in the show and discussing how the creators drew inspiration from them. They've had cast memebers sorta on the show. This is not just another "Gee...I hope Jack and Kate hookup" cast. However, I think a large page of Lost related podcasts may be in order and a better location for these.Sabalon 13:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Although that may be true, it does not make this podcast notable according to Wikipedia policies. Jtrost (T | C | #) 13:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment - Just a note that tagging every annons message (even though there not accounts so i fail to see why your tagging them with SPA) doesnt make there opinions any less valid. thanks/MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 14:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Actually meatpuppetry is "highly inappropriate or unacceptable" according to official policy (Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Meatpuppets)). --Peephole 14:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Amen. This incident of inciting non-participants to supposedly "vote" here is antithetical to Wikipedia's encyclopedic goals. Moreover, as the above referenced policy states, "Neither a sock puppet nor a single-purpose account holder is regarded as a member of the Wikipedia community." Let's not leap to their defense in some misplaced spirit of egalitarianism. Their actions here are disruptive and rude, plain and simple. -- PKtm 15:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I didn't realize I'd stir up a hornet's nest like this in regards to this AfD. With that being said, new contributors are always welcome in Wikipedia, but not in the respect that it's to prove a point or to save an article simply because you've been asked to. Whethere an article exists about your podcast or not does not make it any less of a good program, it's just not worthy of mention on Wikipedia. Wildthing61476 15:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: I love LostCasts, but if anything it should be contained within a bigger article about fan created casts.WeakLemonDrink 11:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. This can be dealt with in a line or two in the Lost article or better yet, just a link in the external links section. Gamaliel 17:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment Really a question. In Wiki articles about entertainment entities, in this case a podcast, are the editors judging the entertainment value of the podcast? Using another example, if I were to post an article about the 70s band The Goodrats, would editors remove it because they think it was an non-notable band because they never heard of it? If so, then so be it. But if not, I don't understand why you want to remove this article. It is a podcast. Some people enjoy it. Ten years from now, long after the Podcast is gone, somebody will turn to their friend and say - hey, what was that podcast we used to listen to with the great theories about lost, and that friend will turn to Wiki. Isnt that what Wiki is for?

  • Strong Keep This podcast is extremely well produced and serves as a great tool for those of us who are too busy to do the work of keeping up with the shows details ourselves. I believe it is a great aid to the Lost community and its Wiki article should be kept in good standing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.145.214.100 (talk • contribs) — 72.145.214.100 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Delete. While I'm a big fan of the lostcast I think a full article on it is not appropiate for an encyclopedia. As other people have commented I think the most noteworthy lost podcasts should be mentioned in a section of the Lost article with a description and a link to them. And obviously Lostcast should be in there as the best theory lost podcast out there. MQ 02:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC) — MQ (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Strong Keep These guys work SO hard for the LOST fan community, they gather so many theories and are indeed notable. It's unfair to delete something like this. nandorocker 11:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC) — nandorocker (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.115.248.60 (talk • contribs) .
  • Keep Since ABC and an actor or two have acknowledged this podcast and/or appeared on it, I think it has become a part of the show's history. The creators themselves have noted that fan feedback contributes to the outcome of how the show is written. Mserenity 19:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Mserenity (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
The same is true about a number of other fan podcasts, but the fact of the matter is that it doesn't make any of them notable. As for the podcast affecting the direction of the show, I would like to see a verifiable source for the information. Jtrost (T | C | #) 20:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
  • KeepI live in Roylal leamington spa, warwickshire England and Im a huge fan, Their Notability has reached across the World, They fully deserve to be listed here : SpOOky, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.69.19 (talk • contribs) 02:04, 2 September 2006 — Possible single purpose account: 81.157.69.19 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.

KEEP!!!! Why Whold You Delete This??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfgiants2062 (talk • contribs) 03:48, 2 September 2006 — Possible single purpose account: Sfgiants2062 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.

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.