Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TOFOP


 * 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. Consensus is that the article currently fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 08:36, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

TOFOP

 * – ( View AfD View log )

The article fails to meet WP:ORG, WP:WEB or WP:GNG. I find no matches on GNews and so there seems little prospect of demonstrating the significant impact needed to address the problem. Fæ (talk) 02:03, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 16 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Please do NOT delete. This page describes a comedy podcast.  A quick search brings up many wikipedia pages devoted to podcasts.  If this page is deleted then logic would require you to delete all wikipedia pages devoted to podcasts, as they can all be considered 'promotional'.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.170.10.83 (talk) 22:20, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. I've declined the A7 speedy on this one on the grounds that some minimal importance was asserted. (This is a borderline case.) However, I agree with the nom that a search for reliable coverage doesn't yield any results. --  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 04:27, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Clearly promotional content. Only found one possible source here but certainly nothing like the "multiple sources" required to meet WP:GNG.--CharlieDelta (talk) 06:39, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Nice ad... Interesting that 4 (4!) SPAs are involved in this "article". A pretty obvious delete. — CharlieEchoTango  — 07:11, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Admittedly, I started off this article without much Wikipedia experience. Having gone through the guidelines, I realise that multiple published sources are not really in existence, because it is a fairly new, niche podcast. It can be verified, however, through the actual podcasts, available on iTunes. I feel, as I'm sure others do, that this new media is worthy of an article on Wikipedia, considering the hours that two well-known Australians have dedicated to informing and entertaining through this medium. There are Wikipedia articles on other works of Wil Anderson and Charlie Clausen, so surely this one is not entirely out of place. Additionally, there is an editorial guideline page entitled 'Don't bite the newcomers'. I ask that this be the case. Yes, it quite possibly needs editing or tweaking, and I agree perhaps later additions could be seen as overly crass, casual or promoting, and this may need adjustment. But I stand by the fact that amidst a lot of banter is pertinent information on a variety of topics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adavies12 (talk • contribs) 19:12, 16 October 2011
 * That it exists is not sufficient, the most relevant guideline for podcast notability is WP:WEB, the simplest way of meeting this guideline is to add two or more reliable sources such as national newspaper reviews or major magazine reviews which give some context for notability (not just listings, such as iTunes or podcast directories; if these were suitable then Wikipedia would rapidly become a directory of products and companies rather than an encyclopaedia of knowledge). With independent sources, there would be every reason to keep the article. With regard to bitey-ness, I hope you agree that my friendly welcome banner added to your talk page at the same time as I nominated the article for discussion, is not in the least bit bitey, gives some rather handy tips for newcomers and offers practical ways of asking for help. --Fæ (talk) 08:32, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Here is an example of such a newspaper article (also published online). http://www.theage.com.au/entertainment/tv-and-radio/free-wil-20110805-1iey0.html This article should certainly not be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.70.137.40 (talk) 10:18, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That source establishes the notability of Wil Anderson, but not that of TOFOP. It's what we refer to as a "trivial mention." --  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 14:19, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not much assertion of notability and certainly no evidence of it. The multiple SPAs are probably explained by this on Facebook: "TOFOP now has a Wikipedia entry. It is pretty bare at the moment, so if you are the sort of person who knows how to do that sort of thing maybe you could add some details". &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 08:34, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It looks like your comment on their Facebook page, and mine, weren't exactly welcome. ;) --  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 04:41, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. While I agree article needs more work to cite reference sources and possibly modify the style somewhat, TOFOP IS notable. One example is the cross-over with US podcast Walking the Room. At the very least, don't rush to delete this article as it is still in the early days of its development - wait six months and then re-visit. MartinL-585 (talk) 01:26, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete as nonnotable. Wait for six months and then re-create, if sufficient sources permit to establish notability. Last Lost (talk) 02:45, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete as failing WP:GNG. One article doesn't notability make. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:38, 23 October 2011 (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.