Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keith and The Girl (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. ‑Scottywong | communicate _ 17:04, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Keith and The Girl
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable podcast. Insufficient justification of notability under WP:GNG or WP:WEB. Unsourced fanboy boats are not sufficient indicators of notability. GrapedApe (talk) 21:45, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Well, it definitely should be trimmed down and better cited. It has won multiple awards and been mentioned in some news pieces so IMO it passes WP:WEB.

--Atlantima (talk) 23:02, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * http://www.laughspin.com/2013/03/06/the-laughspin-interview-with-comedy-podcast-pioneers-keith-and-the-girl/ (not sure if considered an RS)
 * http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/22/arts/22heff.html?_r=0
 * http://www.businessweek.com/stories/2007-04-08/dont-quit-your-day-job-podcasters
 * http://www.podcastusermagazine.com/files/podusermag-issue15.pdf (not sure if considered an RS)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Atlantima (talk) 23:10, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Laurenhennessy (talk) 20:34, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Those articles are mere mentions, not the significant coverage required under WP:GNG. Those awards don't seem to rise to the level of high level web awards (i.e. Webby Award).  --GrapedApe (talk) 23:17, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep, some interesting awards and nominations show good recognition, I"m also seeing multiple secondary source coverage. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 03:25, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep, They have recently been featured on popular podcasts and shows like WTF with March Maron (they helped get him started and he talks about it on their episode) http://www.wtfpod.com/podcast/episodes/episode_335_-_keith_and_the_girl , Comedy Cellar's, Live From the Table, Myq Kaplan's Hang Out With Me, Mike Lawrence's Nerd of Mouth, Laughspin, The Comic's Comic, Skeptically Yours , Proudly Resents , Ardent Atheist , Comedy Film Nerds , Never Not Funny , Dream Tweet (To name a few). They also have over "8,000 unique visitors daily. Between tattoos and brandings, over 120 people from their loyal fan base have permanent Keith and The Girl body modiﬁcations." They are only growing in relevance and popularity. Those are facts. Not a fan's perspective. How can we not keep this page?
 * Comment: User:Laurenhennessy appears to be Lauren Hennessy, a frequent guest on the podcast, and has acknowledged dating one of the hosts.--Atlantima (talk) 00:05, 28 March 2013 (UTC)


 * WP:GNG requires coverage in "Reliable" sources, not references to tweets and other podcasts.--GrapedApe (talk) 00:46, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * If WTF_with_Marc_Maron is sufficiently notable to retain in Wikipedia, then it makes sense to retain this one by reference as "paving the way" (http://www.wtfpod.com/podcast/episodes/episode_335_-_keith_and_the_girl). Podcasting is still not dominantly mainstream but why not consider podcasts are "reliable" when we would consider Webbies reliable? Argument could have been made in late 1990s that Webbies were not mainstream, but they are now. I would argue for much reduced content (as in "weak keep" from Atlantima) since this 'cast is not as well known as WTF for example. But it does have some press, and some notoriety for leading the pack in terms of monetization of the podcast space. LizardJr8 (talk)
 * Keep, as a pioneer in the podcast space, KATG has provided a business model for running a podcast as a viable business. This model has been followed by other podcasts (see WTF ref above). Chemda, one of the original founders, was recently featured in Entrepreneur On Fire and this raises KATG from the level of just-another-podcast to an industry leader, and one who has paved the way for many others to follow, and contributing to the explosive growth in the podcast area.  RedDirtDog (talk) 22:36, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Welcome to Wikipedia, and congratulations on your first edit, which just so happens to be here!--GrapedApe (talk) 00:46, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the welcome Grape. I take your point re "Reliable" sources WP:GNG however I would contend that podcasts of a "professional" nature (i.e. ones not produced by a kid on their laptop) often differ only in delivery from a mainstream Media service (e.g. NBC, or CNN), and in fact, many of these accredited news services reference podcasts (and as the guidelines state - they reference Wikipedia so be careful of circular verification). I fully support WP's quest to be accurate and truthful, however references to profitable podcasts (e.g. WTF) support our claim that KATG are pioneers in an emerging business and have provided a model for others.  References such as the Entrepreneur podcast should be factored in not so much as factual references, but as indications of the breadth and depth of KATG's market penetration. Apologies if this is not the correct area for this type of discussion.  I'm new at this, so feel free to offer guidance.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by RedDirtDog (talk • contribs) 04:58, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * So, you're saying that this podcast should be treated no differently than NBC or CNN? Just so you know, that is a very out-of-the-mainstream opinion.--GrapedApe (talk) 00:46, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * LOL "out of the mainstream" - nicely put. No, I don't believe this podcast carries the same weight as CNN or NBC; however I believe podcasts in general should not be ruled out simply because they're not an "old media" source.  As the media landscape changes, the traditional outlets are relying more on internet based sources for their "facts", so my point is that when a podcast has been running for a number of years and is running as a business, it should not be dismissed as a potentially reliable source simply because it is not a mainstream media source.  For example - the WTF podcast is running as a profitable business, and Marc Maron (the podcaster) is on record attributing his start to KATG. RedDirtDog (talk) 02:09, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Still, pretty far out of the mainstream.--GrapedApe (talk) 02:36, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * http://www.amazon.com/What-Do-Now-Relationship-Questions/dp/0307454398 - I believe Amazon would be considered a RS. KATG is published.
 * Press release from the publisher: http://crownpublishing.com/2010/02/press-release-what-do-we-do-now-keith-and-the-girls-smart-answers-to-your-stupid-relationship-questions-by-keith-malley-and-chemda/ RedDirtDog (talk) 03:28, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Amazon is a reliable source for the existence of the book and facts such as publisher and release date, but nobody is disputing the book's existence. This discussion is about notability. A press release is not an independent source, so does not help establish notability.--Atlantima (talk) 12:09, 28 March 2013 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Theopolisme ( talk )  03:04, 31 March 2013 (UTC)




 * Comment – Note that the article Keith Malley is also nominated for deletion. Here's the discussion: Articles for deletion/Keith Malley (3rd nomination). Northamerica1000(talk) 10:02, 3 April 2013 (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.