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. The keeps either debated how other articles should be deleted (not a relevant argument) or failed to clearly establish notability, as opposed to the delete vvotes which were clear in their arguments. I am also salting the page, given the consensus for that here. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 13:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The 404 podcast[edit]

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

Article has been recreated several times without significant improvement over the version which was deleted as a result of this AFD. An administrator has declined G4 speedy deletion due to questions about the result of that previous AFD. Reopening the discussion. RadioFan (talk) 14:33, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I am amenable to speedy deleting the article (G4) and not salting the title, if it's going to be worked on in userspace. —C.Fred (talk) 20:51, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I considered opening a deletion review thread about the non-speedy-deletion today. While I feel that the first AfD was closed properly, I think it's best to get a clear consensus on the merits of the subject, specifically its verifiability. However, if this AfD closes with a delete result, I think the title should be salted - since twice attempts have been made to create it but in neither case would a good article have come of it. —C.Fred (talk) 20:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Let's focus on this article not others beside WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a good argument to make in an AFD. This isn't about a podcast rivalry (do those really exist? that's really sad) It's about meeting the same notability and reference guidelines that apply to all articles.--RadioFan (talk) 22:33, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment what exactly is the "Google test for notability". All the google news hits are coming from CNET, it's producer which makes it a primary source and not applicable as a reference to show notability here. This subject may be notable but not in its current form. Better references are needed and its the responsiblity of the editors who add the information to properly cite it. Leaving it for X amount of time for someone else to do really isn't a good option.--RadioFan (talk) 22:33, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, counting Google hits is specifically excluded as a measure of notability. So, a "Google test" accomplishes nothing. —C.Fred (talk) 01:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Further to my vote: While noting the raising of ALLORNOTHING, I will also say that a look at TWiT also shows a paucity of verifiable sources and references only materials TWiT or its collaborators have produced. The body of literature out there on podcasts is small as is anything that looks at the media landscape. For the reasons enunciated over the history of this ill-fated article, I do not see a way for it to be resolved without violating No Original Research. Smk (talk) 22:51, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You say keep. Then why are you marking all the TWiT podcasts for speedy deletion? Either I'm missing something, or you're being a hypocrite (no offence intended)! --DanielPharos (talk) 22:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
@Smk - All podcasts which fail our inclusion guidelines should be deleted, yes. As should any articles that don't meet the criteria. If that means we have to ravage podcasts, they deserve to be ravaged. Greg Tyler (t • c) 22:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note, I did not recreate the article, just declined the speedy delete, if the issues raised in the earlier AfD were addressed it is worth having another AfD. The previous AfD was very evenly balanced on keeps and deletes with apparently valid arguments on both sides. It looks like there may be lobbying from somwhere to keep this article. And Tan could even now speedy delete, I would not restore it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

user:callsfromthepublic —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.103.37.148 (talk) 23:05, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting that the last two votes were by completely new accounts. Tan | 39 23:55, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Bribery?" I think not. It was a joke (the show is funny, after all). Unfortunately, I think some personal biases have entered this debate, as neither of the 2 above references are accurate. As I mentioned before, discussion about a Wikipedia page (by the hosts, listeners, or anyone) should be irrelevant. If the entry is notable (which I think it is) and worthy, then it should exist. I don't think that anyone is attempting to circumvent the Wikipedia guidelines, either (by first creating a wiki page and then making the show "legit/notable"). Whether or not discussions have occured about a Wikipedia page is irrelevant, in my opinion. People talk about Wikipedia and its contents for a variety of reasons, all valid. And CNET should not have to "host its own wiki;" Wikipedia is here for all sorts, regardless of affiliation, so long as entries meet certain criteria. Jcfay (talk) 11:42, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the problem: The evidence provided by Psychopez prove that The 404 is asking people to create the page for them. I'm assuming The 404 is aware that it is not allowed to create an article about itself - that would be a conflict of interest. I don't watch the show, but I've been told by friends who do that The 404 wants to use the Wikipedia article as reference, for example, to look up the inside jokes related to the show. The reason why this information is relevant is that it demonstrates motive to circumvent the notability requirement by creating the article, and then spend the following months developing the notability. I'm a deletionist, and we believe in establishing the notability before the article is created. We don't like creating articles just for the hell of it, and then wait for the article to develop. Too many articles like this become lost, and fall into stub land for eternity. Deletionists used this same argument when the Michael Jackson death article was created before the fit hit the shan, and the article was deleted. The article was re-created about a day later WHEN it was determined that the death was not natural. This is an example of proper procedure - let an issue marinate and develop before creating the article. In the case of The 404, you assume that the show will be a success and will be notable. That's what inclusionists and optimists believe. Groink (talk) 12:04, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, there IS an active wiki about the hosts, the inside jokes, etc: see http://the404.wikia.com/ with 500+ pages. — Catherine\talk 16:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
About ten more references added since my last mention, but all the new ones still point to within the C-Net domain. And, @the404 sent out a friendly tweet "Thanks so much to all contributors to our Wikia: F*ck Wikipedia, [Wikia] is all we need, feel free to dive in and edit!" I told you they were trying to use Wikipedia as a reference tool. Groink (talk) 22:47, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Premature"? Five months is plenty of time to find sources. None have been found, and there have been editors working on the article since the last AfD. —C.Fred (talk) 01:51, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What "five months?" As far as I know, this wiki had been deleted and unavailable since it's last deletion. The podcast has definitely continued to grow during the past few months when the wiki was deleted. It's very hard to edit/add anything if the article is extremely difficult to reach (in a deleted state). At the very least, as the wiki is up now, time should be granted for users to attempt to address many of these issues and fix the article.--Dc82 (talk) 03:34, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree with Dc82 on this. As someone who is relatively new to Wikipedia, I found that navigating and locating deleted items is challenging. I would also agree with Dc82 that some of the criticism here really seems unwarranted, inaccurate (regarding the alleged Twitter "campaigns," "bribery," and circumvention of Wikipedia rules), and perhaps of malicious intent. Jcfay (talk) 11:50, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"BOL achieved notability by becoming the top podcast on iTunes" By that standard, the 404 is valid, as it (the video podcast version) has definitely made it on the iTunes top 10 in tech, I believe under it's "new and notable" section.--Dc82 (talk) 03:34, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BUT, besides doing your own primary source research, are there other reliable sources that state this fact? Thing such as looking at a top-10 list, Google search results, etc. are all examples of original research, which is against Wikipedia policy. Groink (talk) 03:49, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
More about the current references. Of the fourteen currently listed, only four are outside of C-Net or Ziff-Davis (Z-D owns C-Net.) One link is to Apple's iTunes - its distributor. One link points to YouTube which is actually not a reliable source under WP guidelines. One links to IMDB, and has nothing to do with the show, and the others are blogs which to date are generally not reliable sources under WP guidelines. Groink (talk) 04:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Especially since this article was just speedy deleted with the instructions that it doesn't have a place in mainspace until there is notability backed up by reliable sources. —C.Fred (talk) 04:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


67.82.206.9 (talk) 13:38, 24 July 2009 (UTC)DarthMaul/DarthWiki[reply]

Perhaps I haven't gone far back enough to past episodes, but at least during the time I did see the 404 video podcast on the top 10 in iTunes, I don't recall them telling people to post 5 star reviews. And with that point, BOL has actively asked for 5 star posts during their shows and for a while, even called out each person on air who gave them such a rating. To your point about the hosts "lobbying," I think what you call "blatant," it's definitely one extreme view of what they're doing - one can just as easily make the argument that they're trying to respect the rules of Wikipedia by asking third parties to edit the page. I'm sure especially as people in the tech industry, it's probably not that hard for them to log on someone's computer and edit the page themselves if they really wanted to. Even in recent episodes as the Wikipedia issue arose, they weren't asking listeners to sabotage or ruin Wikipedia; they were trying to address the issues brought up here, in terms of notability, references, etc. They asked their listeners not to just post up filler or useless information, but to try to find references outside of CNET, relevant information, etc. I just find it funny that there seems to be so much anger and opposition directed towards this page and the hosts; what some try to spin as "self-promotion," others might see as their opinion as a right to exist (as an article), that they do do legitimate work and it should be worth nothing. Again, we're not talking about some kid's webcam show that reaches 15 views. It's one of CNET's top podcasts that not only is continuing to grow in viewership (currently nearly 100k downloads and 200k impressions of their podcasts each month), and is notable enough to attract corporate sponsors (Becks Beer).--Dc82 (talk) 15:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This podcast should be kept because of its unbelievable ability to land amazing/Famous celebrity guests. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.166.226.83 (talk) 23:50, 24 July 2009

  1. The show made a top-10 list on iTunes. I asked for a third-party reference pointing this out. None so far.
  2. The show pops up on Google a gazillion jillian times. Google search results are not reliable, and proving such figures is considered original research, which is against Wikipedia policy.
  3. The show has a large following. As I said in the past, this does not qualify as notability. A guy who ran over a crowd of people, and then appear on CNN, MSNBC and FOX does not make him notable.
  4. The guys at The 404 are encouraging its fans to better the article. All I've seen for the last 24 hours is a bunch of notable guests added to the list, and a bunch more references pointing to C-Net, which I pointed out as WP:SELFPUB. Why isn't this point being made to these editors? Under WP:OR, the show is not its own resource!! It is like trying to prove Jesus exists by quoting from the Holy Bible.
  5. Each of the notable guests may have his/her/its own article on Wikipedia, but none of them has the Midas touch where just appearing makes the show notable. Living in Hawaii, a tiny burger joint in Honolulu where Barack Obama once worked at does not make the burger joint notable.
  6. The show has a major sponsor. That also does not qualify as notability. The PBA Tour has a major sponsor, and Lumber Liquidators the sponsor isn't even notable to have an article of its own. The Tour itself makes its own notable status.

Treat Wikipedia as if it is a research paper you're writing in college. Any college professor would tell his students that qualifying sources, avoiding using POV, and using itself as a source are taboo. Groink (talk) 01:42, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets notability criterion set forth in WP:WEB by virtue of being produced through a respected online publisher that is independent of the creators(CNET and CBS Interactive). Ngaskill (talk) 04:29, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"web-specific content[3] is deemed notable based on meeting any one of the following criteria." ... "3. The content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster;[7] except for trivial distribution including content being hosted on sites without editorial oversight (such as YouTube, MySpace, GeoCities, Newgrounds, personal blogs, etc.)."

To me that indicates that the threshold of notability is met when a major media organization publishes web content provided it is independent (i.e. a press release or public relations statement wouldn't qualify nor would a company's blog itself.) If someone wants to make an argument to delete instead of improve for reasons other than notability I'm open to it. Ngaskill (talk) 00:21, 27 July 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.
Category