Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Otaku generation
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 discounting comments from people with no WP participation outside this AfD. W.marsh 03:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Otaku generation
Non-notable podcast that fails WP:WEB. kotepho 23:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
"The content itself has been the subject of non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. • This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations.[5]" This podcast was covered by Newtype USA (a magazine), where I first heard about it. The write up is discussed in the entry. Deletion is not necessary under these terms. 11:13, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. Seems to be somewhat notable, but only 11 subscribers on Yahoo Podcasts. Haikupoet 04:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. I don't know who to tell.. but we have more than 11 subscribers... more like several thousand... a week, and we're not advertising anything, especially via this wiki. I've very confused in understanding how this came about. chaeseco 11:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Podcasting is not a mature field and there is extreme difficulty in trying to ascertain what's notable and what's not in the field. The metrics for measuring such a thing simply aren't there, and since podcasting is something that can be done by anyone with a copy of Audacity and a fast net connection there is a presumption that most podcasts simply don't reach a reasonable bar of notability. Based on what I found on Google and Yahoo, I honestly couldn't decide whether it was a keep or not, so I more or less abstained. Haikupoet 04:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- The problem lies in that it is very hard to get reliable, verifiable from respected sources about this podcast. The article in Newtype is trivial in nature (and thus does not meet WP:WEB) so it is not much help. |kotepho 10:16, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Isotope23. Kuzaar 14:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep . It's notable enough to have been mentioned in Newtype magazine, and has been linked by both Scott Ramsoomair of VG Cats and R. K. Milholland of Something Positive following their interviews on the show - only three examples of mention off the top of my head, but still. The article is intended to be informative, and could for example prove useful to someone trying to find out about the show after having listened to an episode and finding themselves confused on a point, though it could use a bit of a cleanup. Just my opinion on the matter, however. 72.67.19.75 17:42, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. I'd think that the mentions of the show on well-known webcomics sites and their invitation to do a show at a major anime convention would put them over the bar. However, it's true that it's tough to make these sorts of decisions with the sorts of metrics these days. They do link to some metrics off of their site (e.g. maps derived from numbers and locations of recent visitors), but I'm not an expert in that, so I'm not entirely sure how reliable they are. Since it's entirely possible for a podcast to have a significant listenership without a very active web presence, like any other radio show, doesn't that argue that we should be lenient in deciding exactly how popular a given podcast is, until more reliable, public metrics exist? As a side note: I do agree that it could use some cleanup and perhaps not all of the material on the page is suitable for Wikipedia. Teki D 18:33, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- The Frappr map with 89 people listed and the hit counter says 14450 hits since Jan 2, 2006 and 22888 since Nov 11, 2005 (or 23349... it has two different numbers). That isn't exactly a large fanbase. The Frappr map has been mentioned on the show at least once. No Alexa rating and a low number of google hits(most of which seem to be podcast directories) also. This isn't about popularity though so none of that matters much. kotepho 23:33, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. I've found this entry useful on several occasions when I wanted to look up information about the show. While it may not be the most popular of podcasts, I would say that it has a large enough following to warrant keeping the entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:140.232.144.68 (talk • contribs)
- Keep. Come on guys, Otaku Generation is a great podcast. I need the information on the entry to understand some of the in-jokes. Don't delete this entry! I helped make it! Stumpy
- This comment was made by 24.94.57.31 not User:Stumpy. kotepho 00:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Please do not remove or edit other people's comments. If you are User:Stumpy log in and claim the edit 24.94.57.31. kotepho 08:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Otaku Generation would definatly qualify as notable, not simply for its production quality but its recognision by other notables and established institusions, such as New Type USA. The show has run uninterupted scince it's inception and continues to draw new listeners increasing it's noteriety with every passing week. To contest that Otaku Generation is not notable would be akin to dismissing the original Hitchicker's Guide to the Galaxy as being 'just another radio novel' While OG has yet to achive the mamouth proportions of HHGTTG it's fan base is ever expanding, making a virtual guarantee of it's place in the internet lore. User: Armethis ǀ ǀ armethis
- I think you should keep it. The guest history and in joke explanations make it valuable for people new to the podcast. It definately helped me when I was looking into the podcast to see what it may have to offer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.104.233.123 (talk • contribs)
- This was left on Wikipedia_talk:Articles for deletion/Otaku generation. kotepho 00:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Frankly, the in-jokes were enough before to merit a wiki entry to explain the origin of some of the running gags and what they mean. With the addition of the "Nickname Me" segments, and people using their nick-names in correspondance to the program, there is further need for a wiki entry to keep a lot of this straight. PeytonWestlake 16:48, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. I say keep it because they have been mentioned in Ain't It Cool news. In addition the entry is also helpful for many a newcomer that has heard the Otaku Generation podcast for the first time because it helps them to understand the many in jokes that are rampant throughout. Such as the infamous flaming duckhole or Tuesday nights. Or my personal favorite the Kyle Dragonash song by Apocalypse Dowell. Saggy Z
- Keep. I'll admit that the current article for Otaku Generation could due with some "spring cleaning" but I think it's a decent start at a page which covers the show. The initial deletion request seems to have been made due to the supposed "non-notability" of the Otaku Generation website. Internet culture and media do not always have a high cross-over rate with print culture and media so the fact that the show was mentioned in Newtype USA is already a good first step showing its popularity. The WP:WEB notability guidelines referrenced relate to websites only and although Otaku Generation has a web presense, the Otaku Generation wiki article is primarily in reference to the show itself and not the website www.OtakuGeneration.net. If the Otaku Generation article were to be deleted for non-notability it must first be shown to be non-notable as an entertainment broadcast. I'm using the term "entertainment broadcast" to encompass any audio or video media regardless of delivery method be it internet, over the air broadcast, satelite, cable, or local public access. Not all podcasts will be as popular as This Week in Tech or Rocketboom but that does not mean they are undeserving of a wikipedia article outlining the show. As long as Otaku Generation continues to produce shows on a consistant basis and has an evergrowing viewership, I see no reason that their article should be deleted. In looking over the wiki article standards, I do feel that the article for the show should be re-arranged/edited. It should focus more on the cast of the show, the history of the show, and how the show is produced as opposed to being primarily a list of in-jokes and nicknames. In-jokes are good for helping new listeners understand what the cast is referrencing in various segments of the show. The nicknames portion of the article isn't as informative since the bulk of nicknamed listeners are only mentioned when their nickname is created -- with the exception of frequent "callers" such as Johny Two-Times, Kitty, Jefferson, and Mega. ojenkins 2:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- Articles must prove their notability, not the other way around. Just existing is certainly not a good determination of whether an article is warranted on a podcast or not. I urge you to reread WP:WEB as it specifically mentions podcasts twice. Web content includes, but is not limited to, web comics, podcasts, blogs, message boards, online magazines and other media, web portals and web hosts. Any content which is distributed solely on the internet is considered, for the purposes of this guideline, as web content.[1] How exactly do you think that it does not apply? I am glad you agree that the majority of the content of this article is inappropriate though. kotepho 05:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- Thank you Kotepho for the constructive correction. I went back and reread WP:WEB and saw the mention about podcasts. After rereading the notability article I have come up with what I believe validates the show Otaku Generation as notable web content. Criteria 1b of WP:WEB states that The content itself has been the subject of non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations. I would propose that Otaku Generation meets this requirement due to it's [October 24, 2005 appearance] on [Mondays], the sister-show of .Net Rocks produced by PWOP Productions. PWOP Productions already holds an important place in the world of podcasting by being the [first official podcast production company] with high profile clients such as Microsoft. I have been unable to find any stats for the Mondays podcast, but .NET Rocks -- produced and staring the same cast of people -- has a [subscription base of around 500,000]. Given that Otaku Generation was an active guest for the bulk of the October 24, 2005 Mondays show, I believe that the Otaku Generation show has therefore been the subject of non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. ojenkins 15:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Another podcast is not a reliable source though. kotepho 21:45, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- At this point in the discussion I think I'm more curious as to how this circle of validation, notability and reliability works without any sort of system to begin the first levels of the validation chain. Even the Wiki's reliable source guidelines you mentioned earlier state that Wikipedia itself does not currently meet the reliability guidelines. Generally trust is gained through government, a person/entity of authority, positive personal interactions, or "having a good feeling about something." Those who are trusted then grant trust to others. As far as I can tell, the Wiki's trust model is more based on the decentralized trust model with those who have exhibited longevity and good decision making being more trustworthy than new users or the "sockpuppets" that Ifnord mentioned below. How, if at all, does this trust model factor in those who are new but knowledgable of the subject matter vs those who have longevity but are not as well versed in the field. Take this scenario: Person A is a mechanic who has been working on cars for thirty years. Person B is an electrical engineer who has just finished their master's degree in DC power distribution. Person A and Person B both work at a repair company doing fixes and diagnostics on vehicles. A driver brings in a hybrid gas-electric car that has been suffering from horsepower problems when in electric mode. Who would be more suited to decide the final course of action. The mechanic who has plenty of experience with traditional gas-powered cars, or the eletrical engineer who has plenty of experience with power distribution systems? Each person is good at what they do but the one who has the most longevity may not be the one with the best perspective on the situation. As I mentioned before I'm interested in how the trust and reliabilty model for the wiki system handles this sort of thing. If you think the resultant discussion would clutter this page, feel free to contact me directly to continue so that I can get a better idea of policy. ojenkins 14:18, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- It really is not about trust and is not about longevity either. New users and anonymous users are normally discounted in the 'vote' (AFD is not a vote, we try to build consensus as polls are evil) portion but they certainly have a voice. This is out of necessity and somewhat common sense. However, none of the comments have been deleted thus they all still have a voice. No one is going to discount verifiable evidence just because of the source, although they might scruntinize it more. We need to disenfranchise those that are new as they are likely to be invested in the article unduely, they are not always aware of policy, and the ease with which anyone can flood an AFD with meat or sockpuppets. If you have futher questions feel free to leave them on my or your talk page or email me. —kotepho 2006-03-20 10:16Z
- At this point in the discussion I think I'm more curious as to how this circle of validation, notability and reliability works without any sort of system to begin the first levels of the validation chain. Even the Wiki's reliable source guidelines you mentioned earlier state that Wikipedia itself does not currently meet the reliability guidelines. Generally trust is gained through government, a person/entity of authority, positive personal interactions, or "having a good feeling about something." Those who are trusted then grant trust to others. As far as I can tell, the Wiki's trust model is more based on the decentralized trust model with those who have exhibited longevity and good decision making being more trustworthy than new users or the "sockpuppets" that Ifnord mentioned below. How, if at all, does this trust model factor in those who are new but knowledgable of the subject matter vs those who have longevity but are not as well versed in the field. Take this scenario: Person A is a mechanic who has been working on cars for thirty years. Person B is an electrical engineer who has just finished their master's degree in DC power distribution. Person A and Person B both work at a repair company doing fixes and diagnostics on vehicles. A driver brings in a hybrid gas-electric car that has been suffering from horsepower problems when in electric mode. Who would be more suited to decide the final course of action. The mechanic who has plenty of experience with traditional gas-powered cars, or the eletrical engineer who has plenty of experience with power distribution systems? Each person is good at what they do but the one who has the most longevity may not be the one with the best perspective on the situation. As I mentioned before I'm interested in how the trust and reliabilty model for the wiki system handles this sort of thing. If you think the resultant discussion would clutter this page, feel free to contact me directly to continue so that I can get a better idea of policy. ojenkins 14:18, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Another podcast is not a reliable source though. kotepho 21:45, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you Kotepho for the constructive correction. I went back and reread WP:WEB and saw the mention about podcasts. After rereading the notability article I have come up with what I believe validates the show Otaku Generation as notable web content. Criteria 1b of WP:WEB states that The content itself has been the subject of non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations. I would propose that Otaku Generation meets this requirement due to it's [October 24, 2005 appearance] on [Mondays], the sister-show of .Net Rocks produced by PWOP Productions. PWOP Productions already holds an important place in the world of podcasting by being the [first official podcast production company] with high profile clients such as Microsoft. I have been unable to find any stats for the Mondays podcast, but .NET Rocks -- produced and staring the same cast of people -- has a [subscription base of around 500,000]. Given that Otaku Generation was an active guest for the bulk of the October 24, 2005 Mondays show, I believe that the Otaku Generation show has therefore been the subject of non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. ojenkins 15:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- Articles must prove their notability, not the other way around. Just existing is certainly not a good determination of whether an article is warranted on a podcast or not. I urge you to reread WP:WEB as it specifically mentions podcasts twice. Web content includes, but is not limited to, web comics, podcasts, blogs, message boards, online magazines and other media, web portals and web hosts. Any content which is distributed solely on the internet is considered, for the purposes of this guideline, as web content.[1] How exactly do you think that it does not apply? I am glad you agree that the majority of the content of this article is inappropriate though. kotepho 05:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. They will be guests at a convention to be announced within a few business days -- convention organizer - 22:42, 15 March 2006
- Keep. If Adam Curry's Daily Source Code and the Dawn and Drew Show(hardly notable....just potty talk) get wiki pages, then OtakuG should too.Gorkon 01:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep I can't believe that this is even up for discussion! Otaku Generation is listened to by thousands of people and wiki page is very useful. It keeps me up to date with nicknames and helps me to remember some of my favorite episodes. If this entry is deleted I would say that it would be a tragedy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edunbar (talk • contribs)
- Another comment left on Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Otaku generation. kotepho 08:38, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - Yes, it's Jefferson here. While I'm sure that my opinion can be more or less discounted due to my status as an oblique participant in the show, I'd like to throw in my support for this entry. No attempt is being made to advertise this podcast's presence on the web and I find this to be a very resourceful font of information to introduce any new listener to the show. Even the professional quality of the podcast itself merits a notable mention as it goes beyond just the typical nature of most others that mostly consist of "one guy and his microphone". Granted, the podcast contains mostly niche topics (and in-jokes, but then even radio broadcasts have them) and the main discussion is limited to a particular genre of fandom, but it is a very popular and fast growing segment of fandom. If all podcasts were this good, I'd probably never stop listening to my mp3 player. JeffersonLeeEng 14:53, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete and discount sockpupptets/ballot stuffing. Ifnord 15:54, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I'd almost like to see this be relisted for consensus as there are only 3 delete opinions, 1 keep by a wikipedian with an extensive edit history and a bunch of first timers or users with edit histories restricted to Otaku generation.--Isotope23 19:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- I'm still questioning your reasons for wanting the article to be deleted. Even if there are as many as three delete opinions and the keep opinions are from those you think should be discounted anyway, then surely the notability factor is a moot point anyway. I may not be as well and truly active on the internet as others, but as such, I find wikipedia to be of great importance to even the most amateur of information seekers. And yet, the Otaku Generation podcast will go on... -- JeffersonLeeEng
- Comment I agree that consensus is not clear even if you discount a great deal of the keep votes. —kotepho 2006-03-20 21:37Z
-
- Even if consensus is unclear, the call for deletion is going to continue to rankle a large amount of the fanbase especially those that appreciated the time and effort put into such a page as this. It seems to be clear the opinions of those that seem to be pro-deletion are not going to be swayed by influential mentions in a widely available periodical publication that is Newtype USA and another more or less high profile review site in the form of Ain't It Cool News (AICN). So, what recourse is there for those against this decision for deletion if and when the inevitable does happen? Obviously, you seem to be making this to be a losing battle for the others that want to keep the article and as such, I want to play the Devil's Advocate on my part to understand more fully what moral I should from learn from this endeavour? Somewhere, there has to be a loophole... --JeffersonLeeEng 02:28, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- Frankly, it isn't our problem if OG's fanbase is offended by the deletion of this article. There are many, many articles that have been deleted that raised the ire of their fanbases. Since that obviously would not be a constructive way to decide whether a topic is worthy of an article, guidelines were set forth by our community (like WP:WEB. If you have evidence that it does meet those criteria I would be glad to see it. Even if I were to qualify the Newtype USA mention as non-trivial that is not 'multiple'. The same goes for the Ain't It Cool News mention; it is the epitome of trivial--even if it were non-trivial, it is not from a reliable source. —kotepho 2006-03-21 10:44Z
- I just want to echo what kotepho said with all due respect. There are hundreds of articles that have been deleted and in the process fans of the subjects of these articles have been angered or offended. That is not a strong argument for including a subject in Wikipedia. It is nothing personal against your podcast, it is just the fact that you have not, in my opinion, demonstrated that Otaku generation meets WP:WEB (per kotepho above). As a good faith gesture I've recommended keeping this discussion open and relisting it to allow further opinions from Wikipedia users to be gathered. If Otaku generation's article does get deleted at the end of this process and you are looking at a moral to learn from this endevor I think I can provide one for you... or at least a suggestion. If your goal is to get a Wikipedia article, read WP:WEB and work towards meeting that criteria, rather than looking for a loophole. I would suggest that you go out and shamelessly promote Otaku generation on messageboards, blogs, etc. Try and get some major web and print publications to do a writeup on your podcast. Get your fanbase to do some viral marketing... submit stories on digg.com etc. Is your podcast listed on iTunes? You've gotten 2 small cites by external sources so far... but you need to get more substantial citations and greater number.
- Even if consensus is unclear, the call for deletion is going to continue to rankle a large amount of the fanbase especially those that appreciated the time and effort put into such a page as this. It seems to be clear the opinions of those that seem to be pro-deletion are not going to be swayed by influential mentions in a widely available periodical publication that is Newtype USA and another more or less high profile review site in the form of Ain't It Cool News (AICN). So, what recourse is there for those against this decision for deletion if and when the inevitable does happen? Obviously, you seem to be making this to be a losing battle for the others that want to keep the article and as such, I want to play the Devil's Advocate on my part to understand more fully what moral I should from learn from this endeavour? Somewhere, there has to be a loophole... --JeffersonLeeEng 02:28, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Not notable per WB:WEB If the podcast becomes more notable by all means resubmit the artical. Nigelthefish 16:10, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Otaku Generation has been featured in Newtype magazine. I realize that many people in this thread are new Wikipedians, but why should we be discounted? Just because of Ballot stuffing that has happened in the past on other articles doesn't mean that thier opinion should be discounted. Also, I may add that Otaku Generation is listed on iTunes, Odeo and many other podcast directories. Would these not qualify as a brodcast medium?? Also, I think it would serve the internet in general better to have ONE Online Encyclopedia for everything...Wikipedia is already this for many. Since MediaWiki is open source, I have seen many deletions create new Wiki's. Maybe that's more appropriate. I personaly don't think so.Gorkon 13:59, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- It does not take much to get listed in a podcast directory or on iTunes. kotepho 21:33, 22 March 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.
