Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hello Internet (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:24, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello Internet
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

While I think both figures involved in the production of the podcast are notable, the podcast does not satisfy the general notability guideline, as it has recieved little substantial coverage in mainstream sources, the only exception I can find is this The Register story which documents the attempted vote manipulation of a Radio Times poll by reddit users who were fans of the podcast but it doesn't actually cover the podcast itself. Other news sources in the article cover the concept of "Freebooting" which was coined by one of the podcast hosts during an episode, but these references to the podcast are passing and do not establish notability. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:06, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:06, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:06, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * This is the second AfD of this article, the first Articles_for_deletion/Hello_Internet in 2014 found concensus to merge to CGP Grey. I have checked and I cannot find any other substantial coverage by searching, satisfying, WP:BEFORE. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:09, 29 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment The Polytechnic article seems dedicated to the podcast. Is the source not RS/IS? — Ad Meliora Talk∕Contribs 04:54, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Its a student newspaper from what I can tell, which are marginal for establishing notability. Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:37, 30 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep, I see some of your arguments, but I believe there is enough coverage in the listed sources. As a note, thought it doesn't establish notability by itself, Hello Internet is constantly mentioned in lists of notable podcasts worth listening to like these. There is also a (admittedly somewhat weak) argument to made with WP:WEBCRIT's second criteria: the podcast was named to iTunes "Best New Podcasts of 2014" list. Cerebral726 (talk) 14:56, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Tech Times is not a notable publication for the purposes of establishing notability. It has only 8k followers on twitter compared to The Verge's 2.7 million for example. I remember seeing another mention in a list from Business Insider, but it was a direct link to a Medium post, which also can't be used for establishing notability. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:27, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 03:16, 5 November 2020 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete, although Cerebral726 makes a good point. I wouldn’t object to keeping if notability was more evident in the article text. Elms super 04:38, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. First, on a gut check IAR level, The podcast peaked as the No. 1 iTunes podcast in United Kingdom, United States, Germany, Canada, and Australia. That doesn't sound non-notable to me. Diving into the sources, I'm satisfied GNG is met. The Polytechnic article and Collegian article both qualify in my view. Student media is discounted when it's discussing issues that are potentially of relevance only to a particular college community, but this podcast obviously has a broader reach than Hello, Internet at WPI/Kansas State. Collegian and The Guardian are both lists, but there's sufficient discussion of Hello Internet specifically that it qualifies as a non-trivial mention in my book. Lastly, regarding the possibility of merging, the page has developed to a point where merging the existing material to CGP Grey would cause the podcast section to be UNDUE, so I don't think that would be a good approach. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 00:45, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * A comment on the "merge" possibility: there are two equally valid merge destinations (Brady Haran and CGP Grey), so in practice merging would mean either duplicating a bunch of information or giving undue focus to one host over the other. On that basis I oppose merging. —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:21, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: The links from Twitter, Reddit and other primary sources need to go. The rest of the sources seem to be reliable, including the ones indicated by Sdkb. That said, the article is good enough to pass WP:GNG. ASTIG😎  (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 16:00, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 23:38, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per Sdkb. -- Iago Qnsi (User talk:IagoQnsi) 17:13, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. This article has had a troubled history, with some fans of the podcast acting disruptively/inappropriately and impeding the development of the article. This has not been seen so much recently and the subject is notable enough for an article, albeit not by a huge margin. I hope that the article can be improved and that we will not see another influx of bad behaviour should the podcast return. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:11, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment There was a reddit post about the article being up for elimination posted not to long ago, so I'd prepare for some possible canvassing Helloimahumanbeing (talk) 02:56, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * There are two threads here and here. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:20, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Ugh! They really are their own worst enemies, aren't they? (Obviously, I don't mean all of them. Some people are trying to point out how counter-productive it is for them to mess about here.) Such misbehaviour has wasted time and made people less willing to improve the article, leaving it in a state that is less likely to survive than if they had contributed constructively or just kept out of it. I wish they would grow up a bit. Maybe we need indefinite semi-protection if the article is kept? --DanielRigal (talk) 02:13, 18 November 2020 (UTC)


 * This page is frequently edited due to “timfoolery” or the community having a laugh with the podcast’s creators. The article should remain as it is generally accurate and representative of the podcast.  — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 71.95.191.10 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.
 * Delete: Per Nom. Fails WP:WEBCRIT. The podcast did reach #1 for three days on iTunes but not to any iTunes "Best New Podcasts of 2014" list that I could find. A source "Best Podcasts of 2014" states, "Predictably, Serial has won Apple’s award for Best New Podcast of 2014". I could not find the podcast on the Wikipedia list (for source) either. The source provided on the article "favorite podcasts" ("yearly iTunes Store awards for 2014"; Podcasts): "The best emerging new podcasts were The Art of Thinking SMART Podcast, Hello Spoken English, Hello Internet, Wild Oceans, 500 Startups Podcast, NPR: TED Radio Hour Podcast." The "Collegian article" provides one paragraph and a sentence to the subject (out of a list of 5 product reviews) leaving only the The Polytechnic article to actually establish notability. The fact that the names of living people are mentioned means this is subjected to the sourcing criteria of WP:BLP and not generally I like it or WP:IAR. Student media, "list of" sources with minimum coverage, Twitter, and Reddit do not advance notability. Primary sources also do not establish notability. The sources that mention "Freebooting" is not about "the subject". The above mention of the number of Twitter followers is not an indication of notability. Wikipedia has an average of 18 billion views a day and 27 million registered users (followers), far above 8k or 2.7 million, yet it is not considered a reliable source. Statements like "notable enough for an article, albeit not by a huge margin" seems to hint at barely notable which is a half way mark between notable and non-notable. As soon as I find that acceptable criteria (almost notable) on Wikipedia I might change my !vote.   Otr500 (talk) 19:07, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep on heretical WP:5P1 grounds ("Wikipedia is an interlinked encyclopedia"). The only significant other source (ie, more than a listicle) I've found has potential independence problems. Yet, per there's no good single target as a redirect, and there's a benefit to keeping this bluelinked given that there's a number of pages where it is. The closest analogy I can think of in the SNGs is WP:NBAND Criterion 6, where a band with multiple notable members that isn't a clear spin-off of another band may end up kept even with limited coverage. ( There hasn't yet been an accepted restricted capsule article format for topics of limited significant reliable independent coverage which clearly intersect multiple clearly notable and separate topics -- which would allow such an article to be stripped back to very limited explanatory text, core links, and a DAB/SIA style footer, and keep it that way until a real level of significant coverage can be proven. ) ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 09:01, 20 November 2020 (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.