Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Escape Pod (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   keep. (non-admin closure) '''-- Cheers, Riley   Huntley ''' 00:54, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Escape Pod (podcast)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Contested prod in July 2012 so bringing to AfD. Concern is the podcast show does not meet WP:WEB notability requirements at this time. References given are primary sources, plus 2 review articles dated 2006. Breno talk 05:53, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 25 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Gongshow  Talk 12:02, 31 October 2012 (UTC)




 * Escape Pod is likely the internet's most popular science fiction short story podcast. It's included fiction from virtually every well-known author in the field. It's almost always in the top 30 Literature podcasts at the iTunes store. Here's some coverage from io9 describing it as "the internet's most popular science fiction podcast": http://io9.com/5781776/steve-eley-heralds-the-rise-of-science-fiction-podcasting-in-episode-7-of-the-geeks-guide-to-the-galaxy Ggmohys (talk) 01:45, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm rather stunned that this article is being considered for deletion. Everything stated in it is correct. If you listen to the podcast, everything stated in the article is discussed in the introduction by the host. The criticism is overlooking the most fundamental of primary sources, which are cited: the actual podcasts that continue to be available at escapepod.org and the Internet archive. I'm not sure of the form here, but citing the podcasts from 2005-present will include all of the statements made. Just citing the podcasts from 2005 will cover 75% of the information mentioned.


 * It seems to me the statements made in this posting are being penalized because the primary source is audio rather than text. Even a generous reading implies that they are being penalized because the specific episode from which each statement originates is not specifically cited. I hope a middle ground can be found.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.144.25.130 (talk) 16:49, 6 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - It is covered by books on podcasting: here a whole paragraph about it, and it is mentioned by many others. -- Cycl o pia talk  17:48, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 14:10, 7 November 2012 (UTC)




 * I don't understand the aggressive deletion attitude of wiki editors, and the undefined, notability criteria is idiotic, because it's totally subjective and tends to be interpreted as well, I didn't know about it so it can't be very notable. Everyone should stop defending content and just let wiki whittle itself down to the lowest common denominator of things that everyone everywhere already knows about. That seems to be the goal.  I'm not going to defend this page, despite being a fan of the subject in question. Wikipedia is lucky to be able to include it and if it can't recognize that, go ahead and delete it. It just makes wiki less relevant to users by doing this, and I for one would be happy to see it disappear into obscurity, as I don't believe it is very notable 67.190.150.254 (talk) 19:09, 11 November 2012 (UTC)


 * You may want to read this. -- Cycl o pia talk  19:14, 11 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep per sources found by User:Cyclopia. --Odie5533 (talk) 14:16, 14 November 2012 (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.