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. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The 404 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

The references for this article are all either form cnet or the participants (i.e. not independent) with one exception, a forum post. It's just a random podcast of no objectively provable significance. The bar to publishing a podcast is essentially zero, so we would need robust independent sourcing to establish notability just as we do for any other self-published content. Virtually the entire article is the work of WP:SPAs, as well. Guy (Help!) 21:05, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. 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 by suspected single-purpose accounts may be tagged using: ((subst:spa|username))

• Delete: Yup. Pretty spammy lookin' too. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 22:21, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The 404 is very popular, well known, professional podcast. It's referenced in other communities (ie. Buzz Out Loud), have good guests and content. I see no reason to have it removed. thomas askwho (talk) 23:25, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: Above comment is from the article's primary author (see WP:AfD guidelines, section "How to discuss an AfD", 3rd bullet point.) --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 23:29, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as per WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Guy presents no evidence whatsoever that the podcast hasn't been covered by independent sources, article has only existed for two days. Ottre 02:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP doesn't follow a "notable until proven otherwise" philosophy; per WP:V: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material". --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 04:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Don't lecture me. The fact this is a premature nomination (article clearly shows potential) overrides WP:V. Ottre 06:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
      • If you feel the WP:V policy should have exceptions for articles which clearly show potential, as you put it, please feel free to gather a consensus to amend it. Stifle (talk) 09:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No independent, reliable sources. Stifle (talk) 09:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- fr33kman -s- 15:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I can find references to this from other online communities and websites, it also has some notable guests. Frozenevolution (talk) 18:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Let's have them then. Hope they're reliable. Stifle (talk) 09:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Failure to demonstrate notability through use of independent, reliable sources. If it weren't for the mention of Cnet, it would be a candidate for speedy deletion. —C.Fred (talk) 18:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The WP:BURDEN is on anyone who would claim that a self-promotional article has potential. I did a bunch of google digging, and the closest I could come is some "about the presenter" boilerplate from what smells press-release-y. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 21:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Sources not sufficient to meet WP:N given that they're mainly from a related website and blogs. Nick-D (talk) 07:42, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEP —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.93.50.1 (talk • contribs) 16:20, 17 February 2009 (UTC)— 84.93.50.1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep - Its an official podcast that has a daily show. I see no reason that it could not have a page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.239.176.170 (talk) 16:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC) — 71.239.176.170 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep. CNET is well known and this is one of their daily podcasts. Under WP:WEB they are notable as they are produced by CNET. Sljaxon (talk) (contributions) - Fighting Vandalism Since 2006 03:21, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• 'Delete' Lacks independent RS Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• 'Keep' CNET Networks is a highly respected and highly notable reference. The 404 has had many, again, notable people on. This includes Olympic snowboarder Shaun White, Martin Sargent (of TechTV fame), and Veronica Belmont (the host of PSN's QORE and co-host of Tekzila on Revision3). She was on recently as well. I do have to agree with the fact that the page looks bit erratic, but the cleanliness of it will never be improved if the page is constantly deleted. People keep claiming the 404 is only notable by the association to CNET. This is not true. I pose this question: If the 404 was not notable would these figures have agreed to an interview and appearance on the show? I think not. The 404 is a valid source and should remain a valid page. PacGamer (talk) 17:42, 18 February 2009 (UTC)— PacGamer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  CNET is a corporation that creates a number of works, some of which are article-worthy and some of which are not. Martin Sargent has volunteered to be interviewed on personal blogs of nobody of note, and Veronica Belmont is scarcely more notable. As for Shaun White, I have no idea how generous he is with his time.

  But let's not chase your red herrings. What verifiable facts that are from a non-CNET reliable source can you offer about this show? If the answer is "nothing", then indeed Wikipedia should refrain from comment. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 22:04, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The 404 is a production from CNET who is owned by CBS, it is in no way a "spam" or an un-notable topic. For those who tried to Google for The 404 and got little answers as to what the show is and then say that this entry needs to be deleted, you are a hypocrite to what Wikipedia is about. Without this page, many of you would have no idea what The 404 is, this wiki page is meant to help you learn what it is. Veronica Belmont is not notable in her own rights, nor is Natali Del Conte, they are just the hosts of tech shows too, why are their pages not up for deletion? Does this mean we can put up pages in regards to the three host of The 404 individually and it will not be deleted? The 404 is a professional show broadcasted from the CNET office in New York in an actual studio. This is not something put together with swap meet mics and your mother's garage. The only thing that should be deleted is the "Jokes" that were put it as they were a little unprofessional and can be omitted User:Mikenopolis 15:02, 18 February 2009 (UTC)— Mikeopolis (talk •contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Ah, so there are no other sources (other than CNET pages) that discuss what this show is? Wikipedia makes a practice of not being the first to cover something; WP:V and WP:N and WP:NOR are all executions of this idea.
  At the risk of bordering on ad hominem attack, the entirety of your edits are to articles about CNET shows or CNET hosts. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 23:26, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - podcasts are inherently non-notable per WP:V and WP:RS. There are no reliable sources independent of the 404 to demonstrate notability. The show's existence is not enough - there must be some evidence of outside coverage not involving self-publication, fanzines, or the like. B.Wind (talk) 05:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:WEB. There has been no independent AND reliable sources provided. Perhaps a redirect to CNET at best. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 05:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep If Wikipedia can maintain a page on The View, The 404 should be kept. CNET is a significant source of news and entertainment, and frankly, if ever a show needed explaining, it is The 404 User:Wallet55— 152.11.189.9 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. User:Wallet55 is not a registered Wikipedia username. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 20:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC) [reply]
• KEEP The 404 is from CNET. They are number 8 on itunes list of audio tech podcasts. above DIGGNATION and Buzz Out Loud. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.67.126.50 (talk • contribs) 20:26 19 February 2009 (UTC)— 75.67.126.50 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Keep: CNET has a network of podcasts that provide information, news, opinions, etc. in a similar manner as Leo_Laporte. The TWiT Network aka Leo's podcasts each have their own page and so should each of CNET's podcasts. Both "networks" are equally relevant in their genre with the shows they produce and deserve equal treatment.onetowerone (talk) 20:31, 19 February 2009 (UTC)— onetowerone (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]
• Keep: As the show matures and enters into its 300th episode, it is inheritently apparent that it has a strong community following. Evidence of this may be its inclusion on engadget and in Itunes. The argument to keep can basically be broken down to this: as the podcast matures, the community supporting it will only become larger and stronger. At this point, there are no independent sources who have reported on the 404, but these things take time. A website will not spend time and money covering something it believes to be fledling and passing. So what I propose is a monitored continuation of the page. With the sheer number of people who help put this together, the page's features will improve over time, including the looks and sources. To immediatly shut it down will do nothing to help the situation. This article does not need to be a fight between wikipedia and the 404 community, but rather a partenership to help each other.Frebel93 (talk) 22:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• This has been advertised on the latest 404 news post, the 404 twitter feed, and likely elsewhere. Welcome to Wikipedia! If you'd like to save this article, I would recommend that you find reliable sources (publications with some sort of editorial review, like magazines or the online equivalent) independent of CNET that have had some sort of substantial comment on this podcast. Writing your own blog posts, your own iTunes reviews or citing other blog posts is insufficient, as is any sort of assurance of the 404's popularity or future or whatnot. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 23:06, 19 February 2009 (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.