Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The 404 podcast

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 67.82.206.9 (talk) at 13:38, 24 July 2009 (→‎The 404 podcast). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

The 404 podcast

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]
  • Strong delete and salt. Complete failure to provide independent reliable sources. I speedy deleted this yesterday under criterion G4, reposting of deleted material (see WP:Articles for deletion/The 404). When I deleted it yesterday, I also userfied the text, advising the editor to locate independent reliable sources. Discussion about that was placed at Talk:The 404 podcast - and that page was tagged {{g8-exempt}} and was visible even as the next iteration of the article was created. It's still there as of right now. Since the article was recreated today, I take that as a sign that other editors concede that there are no further independent sources to be found.
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]
  • keep This podcast has more notability than many other articles on Wikipedia, so I am wondering why this particular podcast is under fire. The article could use some work and is slightly one sided, but that can be worked on. I say wait 30 days and see what becomes of this article, then if the article is still one sided with other errors, then reconsider deleting it. I still would not salt the article either way. It seems like people from other competing podcasts are trying to ensure that 404 doesn't make Wikipedia. Patman21 (talk) 22:08, 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]
  • Delete and salt until such time that a userfied article can be produced that meets notability guidelines. This has been recreated too many times and I don't see a problem with the conclusion to the previous discussion on this article. Apparently the kinder method of userfying it and allowing it to be moved back when improved wont work.--RadioFan (talk) 22:33, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep It passes very well the google test for notability. - avsa —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.122.80.235 (talk) 22:27, 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]
  • keep Based upon the logic presented prior and as I am returning from an extended hiatus relative to Wikipedia, I can only state that if we are obliged by standards to vaporize this and salt the title then all podcasts should be considered non-notable and thereby be deleted and salted. The same opprobrium reserved for garage bands and your first grade teacher would likely be well applied to all podcasts that presently have entries. Smk (talk) 22:38, 23 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]
  • Note: I'm not all that impressed on how Graeme Bartlett overturned Julian Colten's close with a simple "I think it should have been a no consensus". Then take it to DRV; you don't simply recreate it. Tan | 39 22:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete and salt. The 404 podcast as a topic has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. There are no sources that address the subject directly in detail, and significant original research was needed to extract the content of this article especially the 'Inside Jokes & Common References' & 'Notable Guests' sections.There is no significant coverage more than a trivial mention other than the podcast's own blog. I question whether it is ethical that the show hosts are actively directing their listeners to re-create the entry because they were unhappy it was correctly deleted before (http://twitter.com/the404/status/2778778767)I see no sufficient coverage from reliable sources to meet the general notability guideline.All the sources provided for the article are links from their own blog (cnet website) - primary sources. One link is from the personal blog of the former main host of the podcast who is also a current regular guest. I posit that the current hosts have a massive campaign to re-create the entry based on a need to self promote. There is evidence of an ongoing attempt to get their listeners to re-create the article and add as much detail as possible in the hope that it is not re-deleted (http://twitter.com/the404/status/2798784442). I propose that the show is simply not notable. The show has significant hits in Google owing to their status of being one of the podcasts produced by CNET (now CBS interactive), a for profit concern with a huge footprint on the web. CNET has had years of google search engine optimization to appear on the top of pages as part of their business model is to attract advertising for their podcasts. Even if google search results were a credible reason to demonstrate notability - this fact should be considered.If re-deleted the show hosts will undoubtedly lobby their listeners to repost the article(http://twitter.com/the404/status/2798784442)This has happened before and will happen again.

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

  • keep This is clearly a notable article, The 404 is a podcast produced by CNET, a notable organization that produces notable content including other podcasts that have been considered notable by Wikipedia standards. From the information on their page they have clearly had notable guests and are reporting notable news and information. The charge that the hosts are making an attempt to create a Wikipedia entry for the express purpose of self-promotion is ridiculous. I seriously doubt that a Wikipedia article will drive that much traffic to a podcast. The idea that this article is not notable enough for wikipedia standards seems to be more a akin to some sort of juvenile internet flame war. There is no reason this article should be deleted so it should remain and hopefully as time goes on any references and sources can be appropriately added.--DavidPomeranzRox (talk) 23:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you do some additional research regarding C-Net, hardly any of its writers and editors have their own Wikipedia pages. So, I wouldn't use the argument that C-Net by association should make it notable. Notability is not by association. Also, the hosts are not behind this article - the fans are. And last, notability is not a work-in-progress activity. You don't create an article and then months later become notable. The article should be notable the very pico-second it is published no Wikipedia. Groink (talk) 04:22, 24 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]
  • keep it is a well known podcast with many devoted followers who want to spread the 404. the longer the page is up the more external sources will be added. this is much more notable than some of the other items on wikipedia, such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shimoisaka_Station which is a one sentence article. the 404 is continuing to grow in popularity, they deserve their own wikipedia page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.135.33.176 (talk) 00:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Several problems with your argument. First, all train stations in Japan are documented on Wikipedia as a wiki project. Second, inclusion is not an argument that has credibility on Wikipedia. All inclusion means is that all the other articles are also facing the same issue as this article, and may lead to action being put on those articles. Groink (talk) 03:24, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep I'll admit first that I am a listener of this podcast. At the same time, I do think a lot of the extreme opposition against the existence of the article (and the podcast itself) seems a bit premature and somewhat unwarranted. Yes, the article itself definitely needs some clean up and professionalism. At the same time, in terms of notability, this is a podcast for one of the largest tech resources on the web. This podcast has repeatedly entered among the top rankings on iTunes among its category and has become among the first of the CNET shows to receive official corporate sponsorship and advertising (from Becks Beer). There is at the very least room for argument for legitimacy and notability for this podcast and it should only be fair to grant a fair amount of time for users, fans or not, to append the wiki with relevant information and references. If really after time, the article is still not up to standard, deletion can be considered. However, accusations of "bribery" and insidious Twitter campaigns and the calls to salt the page seem to be a bit excessive for a seemingly innocuous article (this article is far from anything controversial). The nature of this show is a bit playful and cheeky - but to allege some conspiracy by the hosts to damage the integrity of Wikipedia would be very debatable. Finally, against the proposal of salting, the podcast is also continuing to grow in viewership - even if the decision later on is to delete it, the option to revisit at a later date should be available. Dc82 (talk) 01:39, 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]
  • Delete and salt And I use Buzz Out Loud as a baseline for this. BOL achieved notability by becoming the top podcast on iTunes, among other reasons. The 404 comes nowhere close to achieving any form of notability. Remember now that notability does not mean thousands of people know about the show. The show, rather, should contribute something that reaches the general popular culture. This article relies too much on WP:SELFPUB, and I'm afraid that we're going to see a flood of fans creating content on their web pages in order to be used as sources for this article. As I suggested in the talk page, create this article off-line and then publish it when it has satisfied notability and include reliable 3rd-party sources, rather than creating the article and then spending weeks making the article compliant. I see far too articles being create prematurely. Groink (talk) 03:12, 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]


  • Delete and salt I listen to the 404 podcast and it is an entertaining show for people of a certain taste. However, it is plainly obvious they have been caught doing what has become their modus operandi of self promotion. To those who say the show is notable since it has reached the top of Itunes before; do you know how that happened? not organically, the show solicited its listeners to post 5 star reviews on Itunes in order to game the system. This is well known to regular listeners of the show. The only saving grace is that this method of gaming Itunes is temporary. The show hosts have similarly repeatedly lobbied their listeners to 1. create a wiki page and 2. add external sources to prevent deletion (http://twitter.com/rhapsodyartist/status/2804423274) This last message explicitly links to THIS discussion page to get their listeners to vote to keep the article. It is humorous to see they even think there is a hidden wikipedia insider agenda againsts them (http://twitter.com/rhapsodyartist/status/2805762921) (http://twitter.com/rhapsodyartist/status/2781736545) What I find most blatant is that whereas the show hosts declare they will themselves not edit their own wikipedia page, they tell their listeners EXACTLY what to put on the page (evidence: The404 episode388 http://feeds.feedburner.com/cnet/the404video?format=xml 15:05 minute mark). I implore you to watch this part - they are 'begging'

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_404_podcast&oldid=303932243"