Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pseudopod (podcast)

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. Reviewing the discussion below, it seems it is being asserted by those suggesting retention that this meets our web notability guidelines, but I simply see no evidence of that provided. This deletion is simply on those grounds and is without prejudice against recreation or undeletion if someone wants to provide reliable sources of non-trivial coverage demonstrating WP:WEB (feel free to contact me on my talkpage if you have something you'd like reviewed).--Isotope23 17:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pseudopod (podcast)

Pseudopod (podcast) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Notability is not asserted nor established. No non-trivial secondary sources. I seriously can't see a Wikipedia article for every podcast...just because it's a podcast shouldn't mean notability is automatically conferred. AKRadecki^Speaketh 00:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete unless notability can be reliably established (i.e. 2000 or more subscribers) Arevich 01:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • You're relying on big numbers to establish notability? Morgan Wick 08:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Arevich. Bucketsofg 02:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as nn podcast. --Breno ^talk 03:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as it is as notable as any other professional fiction publication. Shouldn't be hard to get subscriber info. Cleduc 06:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Since when is any professional fictional publication notable?--Svetovid 13:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• Since pretty much always, but granted, I don't spend my life on AfD so I guess I'm not an expert. Cleduc 17:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep -- the download count for each podcast episode is publicly available in parenthesis next to each download link on the main site. If you look at recent episodes, downloads per episode typically run between about 6,500 and 9,000. I can also, if needed, provide you with the graph of our all-time Feedburner circulation (on average, about 4,000 subscribers hit our feed in a 24-hour period). You can also find us in genre market listings. You can run Technorati searches and see the 502 blog references and the authority of 162. You can Google to see what reaction this market is getting from writers and audiences in the horror genre, or see that it comes up second when you search for "horror podcast" and seventh when you search for "fiction podcast." You can also back-search BoingBoing to see how often Cory Doctorow has talked about stories in Pseudopod, or look in the Wired archives to see that we were covered by Wired's Web site on launch day. I can also send scans of interviews, features, and ads in genre print magazines, or screenshots of Pseudopod's image as a front-page featured podcast on iTunes in April. Tell me what evidence you want, folks. I can provide it.--SFEley 08:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - "Us"? Do I detect some conflict of interest here? Wikipedia is not the place to promote your product. AKRadecki^Speaketh 14:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
    • He's the publisher, and he's providing data that somebody above asked about. Assume good faith. Cleduc 15:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
      • And all of that is useful information for us to consider, and it doesn't seem like he's jumping to promote the podcast, especially considering he hasn't edited the article. However, we'd be most comortable if it stayed that way, because if he started editing the article, depending on the nature of the edits, it would bring up WP:COI concerns. Morgan Wick 16:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
        • I don't intend to edit the article. I didn't write it and no one on the Pseudopod team is maintaining it. Other people are doing that. I posted to correct invalid assumptions about our audience size and provide outside references. AKRadecki, I've read the deletion guidelines and I still don't understand what criteria you're using to determine "notability." I will repeat: if you can tell me what evidence you want, I will do my best to provide it. All I'm here to do is answer your questions. --SFEley 21:28, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:WEB. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable web content. I've also put a speedy tag on Escape Pod (podcast), but if it gets removed that should be AfD'd as well. —Psychonaut 00:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as notability per WP:Notability is clear to me. This may be more obvious, and the article better served if the podcast as a 'first' is placed into context with print magazines in the genre (e.g. Lovecraft's, Locus, Paradox, etc.). -- BrentN 21:55, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per BrentN. Also, publisher is willing to assist with verifiable evidence of notability if someone will provide insight as to what is required. --Jason Penney 22:56, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as those arguing for deletion have yet to make a convincing argument against notability. Clearly the numbers would indicated it is a well listened to podcast. The fact that the podcast was once edited by a notable personality in fandom circles would also lend to its relevance.--Arkcana 00:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per user:BrentN. Precious Roy 06:16, 10 July 2007 (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.