Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slice of SciFi


 * 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 no consensus (3 del, 4 keep) Renata3 05:13, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Slice of SciFi
nn podcast (though that's usually redundant), 133 unique Google hits, alexa rank of 610,695. Plus its rank has dropped 81,820 points in three months. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:16, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - I don't think web statistics accurately represent audio podcasts, especially because most of the traffic is strictly client-server (i.e. downloading the episodes). As podcasts go this one is fairly notable and as sf podcasts go this is extremely notable.  Podcasts are an emerging field and your comment of "nn podcast (though that's usually redundant)" strikes me as indicating you are a deletionist with an anti-podcast bent.  --Cyde Weys votetalk 03:31, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I see. When all fails, attack the nominator instead of addressing the subject.  User:Zoe|(talk) 03:47, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry, what I meant to say was podcasts tend to work outside of the world wide web where they can't be tracked so easily. Here's a hypothetical: someone finds Slice of SciFi through iTunes.  They subscribe.  They like it.  They continue listening to it over the course of many weeks.  None of this has any effect whatsoever on the podcast's Google or Alexa ranking.  In fact, I am subscribed to about two dozen podcasts that I listen to regularly and I have never visited the websites of the majority of them; I just find them through iTunes.  There are probably hundreds of thousands of podcast listeners just like me who aren't going to get picked up on a Google or Alexa ranking, hence why I don't think those are applicable metrics for measuring podcasts.  Better?  --Cyde Weys votetalk 12:13, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Forget about that last line and read the rest of Cyde's message. To me that seems to adequately address the issue instead of the nominator. Personally, I don't see why podcasts should be any less notable than notable websites. - Mgm|(talk) 10:21, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. I see no reason to delete. Article is well written and NPOV. This podcasting seems notable enough to me. JoaoRicardotalk 04:32, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep per JoaoRicardo. Essexmutant 11:46, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete all podcasts until time has sorted out which are notable and which are not. The phenomenon is still far too new for a generic "keep". D e nni &#9775;  03:03, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
 * That's a rather unreasonable attitude, just delete everything until we can sort it out? In the mean time work which has been done on pages like this one will be lost.  I don't understand why your default stance is "delete until we're absolutely sure".  And just exactly how long do you propose it will take to "figure out" podcasts?  Another year?  Should Wikipedia really have a blanket policy of deleting all podcasts for many months?  Come now, that's unreasonable.  --Cyde Weys votetalk 04:05, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I have a rule of thumb: if it won't be important in ten years, it's not important now. Right now, as I see it, there are no podcasts of sufficient notability that they can be considered encyclopedic. No reason someone can't write about them in their blog, or that a magazine can't do an article on podcasts, but this topic is clearly not encyclopedic when it comes to individual 'casts. I think, by the way, there is a major difference between "delet(ing) podcasts" and "dele(ing) everything". I also find it interesting that you pose a series of questions, seem to answer them yourself, and then call the responses unreasonable. Do you often have this conflict with yourself? D e nni &#9775;  19:16, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * You can't even think of a single podcast that you consider notable? You're way out of the mainstream on this one, both in terms of mainstream Wikipedia thought and knowledge of mainstream culture.  Podcasts are an emerging phenomenon and there are many that are eminently notable.  And I wasn't posing questions myself, I was posing your thoughts as questions and responding to them.  --Cyde Weys votetalk 20:27, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete podcruft. Stifle 13:17, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Care to further elaborate on your statement? You should at least try to cite guidelines or standards ... "podcruft" isn't one of either.  --Cyde Weys votetalk 15:40, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep It would seem to me that Wikipedia (the cutting edge standard) should be on the cutting edge of defining new technologies such as podcasting, and though it may be new, it will not be going away anytime soon. It, along with videopods are the emerging online technologies that will lead the way for all future audio and video downloading.  In the forefront of this technology are such podcasting innovators as Evo Terra, Michael Mennenga, Tee Morris and Mur Lafferty.  I believe it would be remiss on the part of Wikipedia to ignore this and simply try to catch-up once its tailights are off in the distance.  Slice of SciFi, for those who have kept abreast of this emerging technology, is one of the most recognized innovating podcast programs on the Web, so much so that XM-Satellite (another new and ever-growing technology) has picked up the program to be part of its satellite channel lineup.  I guess it confuses me why someone wouldn't want Wikipedia to chronicle this, in the unbiased way that it currently has, in its databse.  I would still be saying all of this even if I wasn't so closely connected to the project. -- SK Sloan 26 December 2005 (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.