Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cooking Kitty Corner


 * 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 21:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Cooking Kitty Corner
Delete I apologise if I have judged this wrongly, but this is just an amateur film with no notability. Completely nn. J.J.Sagnella 18:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete sum total of encyclopaedic notability revealed by this article: none at all. Just zis Guy you know? 18:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Average viewers range between 500-1000 per week. Wiki article has been requested by viewers.  RSS feed currently ranks 59th in a major vlog directory that includes well known vloggers Steve Garfield, Michael Verdi, and Josh Leo.  Was recently linked on Rocketboom, a vlog averaging 200,000 daily viewers.Pdelongchamp 18:32, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, unless you can tell me what part of WP:WEB this site satisfies. Those external links are nothing more than mirror sites.  RGTraynor 20:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I you're reffering to Rocketboom as a mirror site, you may be approaching this from an old media perspective. Vloggers are part of an online community and often share content with others as well as feature content from others.  This is made possible by Creative Commons copyright licences.Pdelongchamp 21:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * We know. They remain globally insignificant, just like almost all bloggers. Just zis Guy you know? 22:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I was responding RGTraynor's comment. I don't believe your comment adds anything to or even addresses the missunderstanding upon which I was trying to clarify. In any case, please try to be more specific in your comments.  Your blanket statement calling all vloggers globally insignificant is negative and, more importantly, incorrect.Pdelongchamp 15:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * It is indeed negative, but especially in an area of Wikipedia where we decide whether articles are worth keeping, few of us would buy into the inference that Negative = Evil. As to whether it is correct, hm.  Can you name us a few globally significant vloggers?  As in "recognized by the mass media" or by the populace at large?  The overwhelming majority fail Google checks, and you'd think that they'd fly above the radar there, if nowhere else.  RGTraynor 17:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The medium is still very new and terminology has yet to be standardized. Cooking Kitty Corner could fall into the categories of Video Podcasts, Video Blogs, and Internet TV to name a few.  Here are a few references relating to your question.
 * The amount of podcasts currently managed by feedburner alone now exceeds the total number of radio stations in the world.
 * Internet TV could revolutionise broadcasting, says BBC's Head of New Media
 * Lost (TV series) is currently being offered on the internet
 * Free Net TV threatens telecoms and cable, according to CNET’s Marguerite Reardon.
 * Pentagon Debuts Video Podcast
 * Discovery Intros 24/7 Broadband TV Network
 * New Emmy Celebrates Mobile/Broadband Content
 * In addition to these references, Rocketboom, currently one of the most popular vlogs found on the internet recently reported having 200,000 daily viewers. The vlog also made headlines when it earned $40,000 in eBay auction, promising five 15-second ad spots to ATM maker TRM.
 * Rocketboom, as well as host Amanda Congdon's personal blog, has featured and linked Cooking Kitty Corner content and its website.
 * Regarding what you said about being negative, you raise a perfectly good point. What I should have said is that your comment wasn't constructive.  Frankly, I was insulted when I read it.  Blanket statements are often perceived as an attack and rarely add any valuable argument to a debate.Pdelongchamp 19:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Mm, I think you're missing the thrust of our discussion in tying your thesis together, although if this was the proper venue for a debate on its merits, I wouldn't compare podcasts to radio stations, but to the number of programs on radio stations, which is far less of a superficially impressive ratio. Be that as it may, none of the above addresses in which fashion Cooking Kitty Corner satisfies the criteria under WP:WEB.  An argument based around why we should find Rocketboom notable, and therefore CKC must be notable because its content is linked on Rocketboom, is circular at best.  RGTraynor 20:21, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree and understand that radio stations aren’t easily compared to podcasts. I was thinking the same thing as I read the article (stations vs programs).  Can you please, however, address the fact that I responded to your question?  I find it confusing that in response to my answer, you question the appropriateness of the venue.  As for Rocketboom, I’m not arguing its notability.  Rocketboom is notable.  Therefore, Cooking Kitty Corner having been the subject of Rocketboom, whose source is independent of CKC, reveals notability.  Pdelongchamp 21:24, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete I have double checked Guy's math and concur.. zero. In the off chance that we are both in error, please at least clean it up. I find Cooking Kitty Corner non-notable; I find the article itself substandard (How the hosts met: Kim and Pat met in highschool and became roomates in December of 2004.) KillerChihuahua?!? 19:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The article has been cleaned up and now reveals notability. Pdelongchamp 20:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:WEB. Stifle (talk) 00:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * delete as above Pete.Hurd 01:53, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Topic is notable. Information has been added regarding it's reaching rank 98 in iTunes Music Store's Top Podcasts category containing 10 000s of audio and video podcasts. Pdelongchamp 15:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * 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.