Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WDW Today

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. W.marsh 21:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WDW Today

WDW Today (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Article does not assert notability about the podcast. It is full of fancruft and original research. What few references it actually has are to the podcast itself or random sites that have little, if nothing, to do with this topic. The recurring guests don't have their own articles, indicating they are not notable either. Seems like the article is here more for advertisement purposes than anything else. pIrish ^Arr! 21:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. No apparent notability. Google returned quite a few hits, but skimming through some of them I didn't find anything approaching a reliable, independent source. Someguy1221 22:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
• No Delete This page is fine. If anyone had a question as to what the show was about, this would certainly give them the information they need. There are plenty of entries for podcasts, and this is just one of them. Of the many podcasts ou there in the world, this one seems to be of good taste. Out of a search of disney related podcasts, this turns up quite frequently, enough so to say that it should be noted on Wikipedia. I do think it needs to be re-written or edited, just not deleted. I propose a period of editing and rewriting before a deletion decesion needs to be made........jw 20:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment - the podcast must be notable. Arguing that there are other articles about podcasts on Wikipedia has no bearing on this one. We know that there are articles out there that meet notability requirements that can stay. However, we also know there are articles that should be deleted and they will eventually end up here if they cannot assert notability. If the page were fine, I wouldn't have brought it up for deletion. Whether the podcast is in good taste or that it gets hits on Google is not a criteria for whether it gets to have an article. However, notability, backed up by reliable sources, is a criteria. This article does not meet that and searches have produced no reliable sources either. You are more than welcome to edit the article while it is up for deletion to get the outcome changed. If you think you can assert the podcast's notability, please do make a go at it. --pIrish ^Arr! 20:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Retort- In the field of the Disney online community, this is one of the most highly noted/well known podcast.

Notability: 'The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself WDW Today has been featured in many articles and columns on various online Disney related sites. The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization WDW Today has won many awards in the disney community for outstanding podcast.

Reliability: Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand Check out Mouseplanet.com, Allearsnet.com, Mouseextra.com for articles and information about the podcast. These sites are regarded as the go-to palce on the internet for anything disney, and all are run by dedicated knowledgeable people in the Disney fan community. What about Inside the Magic? Just becaue something seems unknown to one person doesn't make that the case. Again, I vote No Delete. This article is about a well known item in a particular field, is not an advertisement, and meets other Wiki Standards. I have also done some minor editing of the page to make blank links work ........jw 23:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

You still have not asserted notability. Your claims hold little weight if you don't cite them. People are not going to take your word that it has won "many awards" without seeing a citation (and the awards themselves must be notable as well). The same goes for the articles/columns; you've given me no indication that they are reliable. I looked through the sites you listed and used the search function on each. None of the links I was coming up with showed notability, they were all just plugs (advertisements) for the podcast. A reliable source would be something like a newspaper/magazine article that talks about the podcast and may even go in depth about it, not something that advertises it or talks about how the webmaster made an appearance on the show.

About your comparison between this podcast and Inside the Magic. I've Googled both. "Inside the Magic" gets significantly more hits, no matter how I search. This at least indicates that it is more popular/notable, even if by a little more than this one. Should the other one be deleted? Perhaps. Perhaps not. But this discussion is not about that one. It is about this one. Again, do not use straw men to support your argument. This nomination is for this article, don't bring up other articles to support this simply based on the fact that they exist because, in all honesty, maybe they shouldn't.

I will, once again, tell you that you are more than welcome to edit and even overhaul the article to improve it and change, not only others' minds, but mine as well. Regarding your most recent edits (I will assume that it was your IP since it was the only one that edited the page after I put the notice up), you did not make unclickable links clickable, you just removed them so they wouldn't show up as red links or you just linked to their personal outside sites that have little, if nothing, to do with this topic. I have little doubt that you want the article to remain (afterall, you did create it), however, you have thus shown no initiative to actually fix the article. I strongly encourage you to do so. Improve the article. Show why it is notable by citing references. --pIrish ^Arr! 03:47, 18 May 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.