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The result was withdrawn by nominator, and clear consensus to keep. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 15:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FLOSS Weekly[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

FLOSS Weekly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

"Lack of third party citations or notability I refer to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/This_WEEK_in_FUN for precedent on this kind of thing andyzweb (talk) 15:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many wikipedia-notable people have been on this show, and the show is in active production, unlike TWIF, so the comparison is unworthy. --Randal L. Schwartz (talk) 15:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:WEB. Podcast which has had a few notable techie-type guests but isn't notable itself. Also, "Randal Schwartz" is the name of the host, so this appears to be a self-promotion/advertising attempt. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I presumed it would be obvious that I'm talking about my own podcast. No attempt to hide here... I edit with my name here and my name is on the list of hosts there. --Randal L. Schwartz (talk) 20:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, "few" is misleading. 57 wikipedia-worthy individuals in 104 shows. "Few" doesn't do that justice. Google searches also show many thousands of links to the show, particularly by the participants and their communities. --Randal L. Schwartz (talk) 20:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just pointed out to me that episode 7 interviewed one Jimmy Wales. Notable enough? :) If nothing else, that makes FLOSS Weekly relevant to the history of WP itself. --Randal L. Schwartz (talk) 23:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is pretty damn funny that Andrew Lenahan complains of "self-promotion" here when he has a 370x600px studio portrait of himself on his user page. Jeh (talk) 23:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I personally think that Andrew Lenahan's (Starblind) userpage should be deleated due to being over the top selfpromoting along with not having any significance in mainstream media. Rovanion (talk) 12:28, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How to start user delete process? Starblind is using his page for promotion. --Noma4i (talk) 23:54, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. After looking at Andrew Lenahan userpage, it's hypocritical to accuse Randal Schwartz of self-promotion for updating FLOSS Weekly show details. --Poobal (talk) 18:28, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There is no compelling reason to seek out this article's deletion any more than there would be for a television show. There is a different audience—FLOSS Weekly is not a show targeted at the mainstream audience as, say, a show like Bones or House, but it is notable in the free software world. If this article is to be deleted, we must at least assume that this means that various other articles, such as those on Lunix (not a typo) or the Ion window manager should also be deleted because the articles cover subjects which are also not targeted to mainstream. —Michael B. Trausch • Talk to me 20:55, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One additional comment: Why did the proposer for deletion not also propose this Week in Tech for an AfD? It targets a larger audience (technical people as opposed to the subset of technical people who are interested in free software), but I fail to see why one should be proposed for deletion while the other one is not. It seems that perhaps there is something else going on here—though that should not be read as an accusation, just curiosity. —Michael B. Trausch • Talk to me 20:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TWiT (both the podcast and the network) probably gets a lot more media attention, definitely enough to satisfy the first criteria of WP:WEB. I would love to see the article for the podcast stay as I'm a great fan, but I don't believe it satisfies any of the two last criteria on that page, and I don't know of any media coverage of FLOSS Weekly that meets criteria 1, so according to the rules, it sadly wouldn't be considered notable. --Sakurina (talk) 21:08, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per Schwartz's notable quests comment, and Trausch's point on notability within it's group. --Falcorian ^(talk) 21:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. FLOSS Weekly is one of the most popular free software/open source podcasts out there, with many famous guests on the show. The article itself is also pretty mature, so I see no compelling reason to delete it. -- Sunny256|✎ 21:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Notable netcast, relevant to open-source and community contribution, interviewed Jimmy Wales, Wikipedia founder, among others.Dagmon|24:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Mshook|✎ 21:07, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I don't understand the rationale behind the reason to delete this article. The shows has had very significant guests and a simple google search will reveal the number of links back to the show. Even if the reason is true, it not but, the reasoning is inadequate to delete the article. --Poobal (talk) 21:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Well, it's true that there are only few Googleable external references to FLOSS weekly, none of them worth mentioning. How do you respond to that? Hedgehog83 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:51, 18 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  • Define few. Is: Results 1 - 10 of about 29,600 for "FLOSS Weekly" -site:twit.tv -site:leoville.tv few? Arenlor (talk) 15:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This podcast has had some of the most notable and biggest names in the open source community! Gmcintire (talk) 22:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I have to concur that it is no different than a page for any number of television shows, except that it lacks the IP related risks. As I am typing this message there are more references sited than many pages (so I assume that issue is resolved). If the issue is a matter of who edits, then I am sure we can fix that as well. As for notability, the podcast is a wealth of information. The guest list includes many (perhaps most) of the big names in the Open Source community. His guests have included Linus Torvalds, and Tim O’Reilly. The Community Manager for Ubuntu is on the show so often that they have just given up and declared him as a kind of host. These names may or may not be notable in the world at large, but they are notable to much of the core group that keeps Wikipedia (and MediaWiki for that matter) running, both financially and manpower wise. Emry (talk) 00:34, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Don't be silly. - David Gerard (talk) 01:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep. Greater than 50k downloads an episode. Several famous people as guests. (Famous as in have been on mainstream news as guests.) Linked to from Sun, has won an award. Honestly, what is the problem here? Arenlor (talk) 05:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upon further consideration I'm changing this to Speedy Keep, as it was done in Bad Faith. As per the Guide to deletion this should have been given the notability template. Arenlor (talk) 15:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. FLOSS has been a major contributor to creating a historical record of some of the major opensource projects. Sloarch08 (talk) 22:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. FLOSS Weekly is a very notable podcast, with interviews with very significant guests from the open source community. Onkyo604 (talk)
• Speedy Keep. Nominator cites Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/This_WEEK_in_FUN as precedent but he in fact voted "Keep" there, and also stated [1] "if this AfD passes I am going on a witch hunt for any other poorly cited or referenced podcasts on wikipedia and nominate the them for AfD". "Witch hunt" clearly shows this is simply being done out of spite - obvious WP:POINTy Bad Faith. Jeh (talk) 17:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep. Many good reasons have already been explained above. I also agree with the Bad Faith assessment. --Hapa (talk) 18:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There's no reason to delete the article. ptrlow 02:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
• Keep. There is no good reason to delete this article. The podcast is very notable in that is covers open source issues and projects and has produced notable interviews, even with Jimmy Wales himself!. The original proposer appears to have an alterer motive in suggesting this article be deleted, given than his own page ([2]) is a rampant example of self-promotion. SimonZerafa (talk) 14:19, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ptrlow (talk • contribs)

• Keep: I can't believe this is even an issue. Either there is some willful dishonesty in the person proposing this deletion, or else the policies under which this deletion might seem reasonable are seriously broken. This kind of article is exactly what Wikipedia is good at, and why we created it in the first place. --LDC (talk) 19:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This long-running podcast is quite nearly the de-facto nexus of the FLOSS world. It relatively a-politcally interviews the authors of some of the most pervasive FLOSS software in the world along with some of the most influential publishers and pundits. We're talking about giants like Linus Torvalds (Linux), Rasmus Lerdorf (PHP), and Guido van Rossum (Python) and industry luminaries like Tim O'Reilly (O'Reilly Publishing) and Rob Malda (slashdot). This podcast serves as the periodical of record, giving the proverbial inside scoop into the history, motivations, and future direction of the FLOSS movement in a well-rounded fashion. If you are not familiar with the names I've just mentioned and what their direct and indirect impact has been on both the IT world, the Internet, and the computer industry as a whole, please excuse yourself from this conversation and leave FLOSS Weekly's entry alone, you are certainly out of your depth.--CraigHernAnderson (talk) 19:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep. Given the nominator's previously cited promise to "go on a witch hunt" to delete articles referencing other podcasts, when taking into consideration the relatively high level of notability of the subject of this article, it is apparent that this article was nominated simply to prove a point WP:POINT -- and therefore done in bad faith. Tylerl (talk) 04:52, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It seems that this article has been slated for deletion without proving any one of the 13 deletion criteria. The statement concerning lack of 3rd party citation seems to fall flat with a simple Google search ("floss weekly" -twit.tv). I think someone may have jumped the gun on this thinking, "Hmmmm...I've never heard of it so it must not be notable." I think that it is; maybe not 'Flip Wilson' notable but notable enough to maintain an entry.Kenegray (talk) 05:24, 23 January 2010 (UTC) — Kenegray (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Speedy Keep. The logic behind marking this article for Deletion seems to be Deleting entries based on the fact that they are not in traditional old media and as such this is not a valid argument for deletion. This entry does not promote a single person and the show itself is an important record of many notable people[3][4][5][6][7][8] and projects[9][10][11][12] in Open Source. FLOSS Weekly's main focus is on interviewing people (notable or otherwise) involved in Open Source world. It is not focused on self promotion therefore the self promotion argument in this case is inappropriate. To say that this entry is worthy of deletion would seems unusual and unnecessary .Sparthir (talk) 10:42, 23 January 2010 (UTC) — Sparthir (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep Looks OK to me, except for perhaps needing to find some non editable or bloggy references. Peridon (talk) 12:49, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep "You're an ass, Andrew Lenahan". now (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.86.249.202 (talk) — 212.86.249.202 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Keep Uzytkownik (talk) 19:13, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why? Haakon (talk) 19:37, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There are third party citations now, and I'm unsure how it would not be considered notable. Most of the guests are notable, and the hosts are published authors and/or televison and radio personalities. I realize the notability of a person does not automatically transfer to their creations, but in this case it does at least make non-notability non-obvious to me. And their is the concern that this proposed deletion is in bad faith. SteveLetwin (talk) 21:13, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep flies to this article with love from Russia. There're a lot of people interested in this project.93.157.162.109 (talk) 22:26, 23 January 2010 (UTC) — 93.157.162.109 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Speedy Keep. The case for the article meeting any of the criteria for deletion has not been proven. You cannot argue for deleting an article based on the idea that mainstream media or scholarly sources have not mentioned it. Given the notable guest on the show and notable web sources that mentioned the show I think it clearly meets the criteria for keeping. --Cab88 (talk) 02:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The list of guests and projects who have appeared on FLOSS weekly is testament to the program's notability. Nearly all of the projects and many of the guests have Wikipedia entries. Since the episode list links to the show itself, the content of the article is easily verifiable. Nickaubert (talk) 06:25, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is a well-established podcast with notable hosts and a long list of notable guests. To address WP:WEB directly, though the criteria seem completely arbitrary, biased heavily towards mainstream media, and extremely incomplete for establishing notability, FLOSS Weekly fits both #2 (nominated for a Podcast Award[13]) and #3 (distributed by TWiT.tv_(network)). Nasarius (talk) 07:31, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Just a note about WEB #1, Sun and CNET both list it. I believe that should suffice. Arenlor (talk) 08:41, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above --Ilya (talk) 13:50, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This podcast is very well established. It's value goes beyond the individual host or the TWIT network - it is part of the web - the interviews provide important information that will provide unique history referencing the various show topics. Joemoraca (talk) 20:34, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is crazy, you have to keep this page. FLoss Weekly one of only three podcasts I listen to every week —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.169.9.225 (talk) 17:25, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep FLOSS Weekly is one of the places on the Internet that epitomizes the principles of Wikipedia. redfearnb —Preceding undated comment added 23:28, 24 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
• Speedy Keep The page does not clearly violate any of the points in the deletion policy and sheer participation in votes is more than enough to indicate the subject's significance. Also, see previous votes for indication of bad faith and WP:Point. Pjdkoch (talk) 01:44, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Article is notable and does not qualify for deletion Raffen (talk) 11:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is a notable podcast, and no convincing reasons have been given for deletion. This seems like a nomination made in bad faith. -- Stephen Gilbert (talk) 11:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.