Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doctor Who: Tin Dog Podcast


 * 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 -- JForget 00:43, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Doctor Who: Tin Dog Podcast

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non notable podcast. There is no independent coverage offered in the article to establish notability and none, from reliable sources, appears to exist. The article reads as spam and when taken with the main editors constant adding of what's coming up in the next show it appears to be a promotional piece. Of the 'references offered, one makes no mention of the subject, the other is a trivial mention that this podcast is advertised in another podcast Nuttah68 08:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * WikiProject Doctor Who has been informed of this ongoing discussion. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 16:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe this artical is as notable as either of the following, Doctor Who: DWO Whocast and Doctor Who: Podshock. Although I have taken into account many of the things you have said and have edited the page accordingly, we'll see who else has anything to say on the matter, if not we'll keep the page as it is.--Wiggstar69 13:41, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * This is my own podcast and it has over 1100 listerers every week. I dont understand why a useful resource like this should remove an entry? do they need to sign something. its the 3rd most popular podcast on doctor who on itunes in the world! tin-dog@hotmail.co.uk


 * Delete entertaining though this relatively new podcast is, the article does not provide any verifiable sources to check its claimed notability - "highly ranked on Itunes" is not sufficient. The Missing Hour (talk) 17:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - Fails requirements of WP:WEB and WP:N. Also, the article is leaning a bit towards WP:SPAM. Wikipedia is not a vehicle in which to promote podcasts with little independent coverage from reliable sources WP:RS. -- Nen  yedi  • (Deeds•Talk) 22:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Balloonman (talk) 21:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - I realise that having no sources from pages outside of promotional pages for the podcast doesn't help the artical keep its current position, although I must stress that I beleive if we can find outside proof that this podcast has gained large popularity in a very short period of time it could still be valid. For example looking for official reports given to the creater of the podcast giving his listenership figures, this is if relying on Itunes isn't enough. I have made recent edits to prevent the artical becoming an advert or spam (following WP:SPAM) and will take any suggestions to continue this trend. unsigned comment byWiggstar69
 * Any changable problems to this page I will make sure I follow to the letter.--Wiggstar69 (talk) 23:05, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Has not been the subject of multiple independent non-trivial published works, received a well-known award, nor is distributed independently of the creators throuh a repected medium: does not meet WP:WEB at this time. Does not meet proposed WP:PODCAST criteria either. If article is deleted, this should not stop a notable, well referenced article being written in the future, if later on the podcast merits inclusion. --Breno talk 11:43, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Added Doctor Who: Tin Dog Podcast Episode Listings to this AfD as it's essentially a sub article of this one. Contested prod from separate review. --Breno talk 11:50, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Basically no third part coverage, only 51 ghits. Agree with Breno.  Citi Cat   ♫ 14:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Not relevant, no need to have this. Stuart  DD  contributions 15:14, 19 November 2007 (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.