Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rocketboom

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 of the debate was keep. Sango 123 15:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rocketboom

Delete or Merge with Andrew Baron non notable video blog which recieved only brief attention. Subject is not encyclopedic and article does not establish notability - blogs are not notable regardless of media coverage they're soapboxes and Wiki is not advertisement for them. Seems like an advertisement. Strothra 02:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Aside from being hugely popular and the first Vlog to sell advertising, Rocketboom has been the subject of substantial media coverage [1] [2]. ScottW 02:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Here's another reference, in case there's any doubt [3]. ScottW 02:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, very notable[4], written about in such newspapers as The Wall Street Journal, Slate, The Sunday Times. --Pmsyyz 04:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Key citations remain missing, notably regarding who says these guys are so important. It's a question whether it's actually encyclopedic or not, not whether it got its 15 minutes of fame. Tychocat 07:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per WP:WEB. Has received significant media coverage as shown above. Capitalistroadster 07:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above, the vlog is notable and has received significant media coverage, and comparisons of daily viewers to cable shows. What I'm skeptical of (and I'm a blog advocate) is the separate article Amanda Congdon; I don't think she's individually notable, keeping in mind that Ana Marie Cox didn't get a separate entry from Wonkette until she published a book and "retired". --Dhartung | Talk 08:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above. It has received a lot of coverage in the traditional media and has a wide following. Moreover, I think the WP:WEB criteria should be updated to mention how to treat cases like this where the fact that this is available via a web site is mostly incidental. It is a separate broadcast medium - for example, I don't use a web browsers to access it, I use the Democracy Player and so it is more like a TV show. Thus the criteria for Wikipedia inclusion ought to be more those governing TV shows than web sites. - Hayne 08:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The cited Wikipedia pages WP:VERIFY and WP:CITE are all about improving the quality of articles, not about deleting them if a set of criteria aren't met. This article seems quite noteworthy. __meco 12:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, verifiable, meets WP:WEB, it had media coverage, notable blog. --Ter e nc e Ong 14:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If most people were asked to name a vlog that they have heard of, it would likely be this one. youngamerican (talk) 17:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment. That brings up the interesting aspect of some of this notability argumentation. Most people haven't heard of vlogs at all, so does that make it more likely that such a site isn't notable? __meco 17:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yeah, that's a good question, though I think there's certainly room for articles surrounding topics that may not be known to the world at large. I think vlogs should generally be held to the same standard as a regular blog, which should be a reasonably high standard. In this case, the mainstream media coverage and the fact that Rocketboom has been out at the front in development of a certain type of vlog is more than enough to meet my threshold for notability. However, what about the case in which the vlog/blog is particlularly well known in the blogging community, but has limited outside coverage? See the Chuck Olson discussion for example of one of these: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chuck Olsen. In this case, I thought it wasn't notable enough, at least for now . ScottW 18:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd heard of vlogs, and am familiar with them. For me it remains the difference between having 15 minutes of fame, and being notable, and my vote is unchanged. However, the upgrade in documentation (to my mind, mostly 'me-too' news releases) helps make the thing at least look encyclopedic. Tychocat 04:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue the opposite. The addition of documentation adds notability but it does not make the article or subject encyclopedic. Rocketboom is a blog and such things are impermanent not to mention they appeal to only small portions of individuals. I could see an argument for its notability or encyclopedic importance to a subculture but that in itself, in my view, rules out its importance. --Strothra 13:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Citations and references have been added. Pepso 18:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep lots of media coverage (read an article about it a few weeks ago in Wired (magazine), passes WP:WEB. --TorriTorri 00:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well known, popular and significant. Alexander256
Strong Keep Just because you, a rank and file user say's it's non notable in your nomination, does not make it so. Stop being a deletionist!--Nick Dillinger 16:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

haha Stop being an inclusionist! --Strothra 17:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Understanding the growth of vlogging requires an understanding of notable examples, such as rocketboom.

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.