Talk:Podcast Awards

This article was nominated for deletion on 26 August 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

Podcasting Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Podcasting, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of notable podcasts and podcast-related information on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PodcastingWikipedia:WikiProject PodcastingTemplate:WikiProject Podcastingpodcasting articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Awards Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Awards, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of awards and prizes on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AwardsWikipedia:WikiProject AwardsTemplate:WikiProject Awardsawards articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Articles about the Podcast Awards from Newspapers, Magazines?

Are there any articles about the awards in Newspapers or Magazines?Kevin Crossman 17:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have tried to add some references to reliable sources such as these. Anonymous101 (talk) 16:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other Podcast Awards

There is also something like an European Podcast Award Should it be mentioned here, does it deserve a page for itself?--Popopp (talk) 15:18, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scam

The podcast awards are a scam to drive traffic to the website and get ad revenue. Le Douche? But of course! (talk) 19:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Grammer

This article has more gramatical errors than a bad podcast.TheTribeHasSpoken (talk) 03:07, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Grammatical. User: Anon 14:59, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism

the criticism section seems quite unjust, and doesn't have any references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.211.152.27 (talk) 13:36, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why no controversy?

There have been multiple instances of rule flip-flopping, public drama (ala Twitter), and clear bias on the part of Todd. To present this as an entirely professional institution as the article does is very disengenuous. 199.66.66.136 (talk) 18:01, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you have sourced reports, feel free to add such a section. It is common for awards articles. It looks like there used to be a criticism section once, before it was removed, disguised as an edit only adding 12th awards info here: Special:Diff/788459669. I will restore this section since it was sourced. Feel free to add to it (with sources) as you see fit. -2pou (talk) 03:59, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]