Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taverncast


 * 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. BJ Talk 02:24, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Taverncast

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Article makes claims that evidence does not support. A google search only turns up a little less than 5,000 hits, many of which are entries in podcast directories. So far, I have yet to find any coverage of the podcast in any reliable, third-party sources to back up the articles claims of notability. Rwiggum (Talk /Contrib ) 01:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. No coverage in reliable sources. Kafziel Complaint Department 06:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Compared to contemporaries already on Wikipedia, there are plenty of reliable sources-(see discussion page and article) - also, podcast is well known in MMORPG gaming subculture.Albertlentz (talk) 17:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * None of the links on the article's talk page meet the standards. In fact, most of them are blogs. Kafziel Complaint Department 18:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The links are simply in blog format - for example, wowinsider.com, virginworlds.com, lubbockonline.com and zoom-in.com are all using the format to update pages, a la WordPress or other CM interfaces. This should not negate the worthiness of the link.Albertlentz (talk) 18:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, it does. Self-published sources are not reliable. Kafziel Complaint Department 19:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I don't understand the meaning of "self published", but zoom-in.com, wowinsider.com and lubbockonline.com are not self-published blogs as if they are one person running an op ed. Zoom-In is a content and news site, Wow Insider is part of Joystiq and the Lubbock Online is a newspaper, of which the blog listed is one of their columnists, both online and off. Virginworlds.com is another gaming show, and definitely is self published.Albertlentz (talk) 19:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 *  Weak Delete:I looked at the references provided for this version of the page.
 * 1) Blog post about how much the blogger likes this podcast.
 * 2) Post on WoW Insider about an experiment by one of the podcasters to play WoW like an addict.
 * 3) Blog post on Lubbock Online about the addiction experiment.
 * 4) Post on WoW Insider about the podcast no longer being about WoW.
 * 5) Page on Edge-Online about a thing called the Xfire Debate Club, in which someone from the podcast will apparently be part of the first debate.  This isn't about the podcast at all.
 * 6) Another thing about the Xfire Debate.
 * 7) A transcript of an Xfire debate.  I'm sensing a theme here.
 * 8) One of the Taverncast people blending something, on YouTube.
 * 9) A blog by an "MMORPG player, armchair designer, and former programmer" in which he spends a paragraph saying he likes Taverncast in and among a dozen other paragraphs about podcasts he likes.
 * 10) Zoom-In Online (who?) says that this is one of the top 10 Warcraft podcasts on the planet.
 * The article is written in an entirely unencyclopedic tone and it's full of trivia. If it's going to be kept at all, it needs to be stripped down to a very small stub.  As it looks now, I recommend deletion.  Our criteria for keeping are:


 * 1) The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.  The references here are either trivial (someone from the podcast was part of a debate that was unrelated to the podcast, that sort of thing), or not independent of the site (a podcaster blending things on YouTube), or small references (the Lubbock Online blog post).
 * 2) The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization. The award it has won doesn't look well-known at all.
 * 3) The content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators. The article says that the podcast is distributed by two of the people in the podcast.  So it fails this criterion. Brilliant Pebble (talk) 04:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * As far as the distribution issue goes, my earlier edit may have made this unclear, as the show is actually hosted by Future pnl's PC Gamer - Snapdragon is referenced as the source of production funding. It probably doesn't matter at this point, but I can clean this up. As far as the article being non-encyclopedic, can you point me to a style guide of some sort on Wikipedia to walk me through how to write it more to the site standard?  As to whether to delete or not delete, obviously I felt the article was notable in the first place, and have stated my case for it as clearly as possible on the discussion page, so I don't want to beat that horse to death.  Appreciate you comments and will work to alter the article accordingly if there's any chance of it being maintained. Albertlentz (talk) 05:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I have serious problems with the reliability of some of the statements made about the podcast. The statement that it gets a million downloads strikes me several orders of magnitude out of agreement with reality, when the Guinness world record for downloads in 2007 is 261,000.  However, if you believe that the article can be saved, I recommend you should pare it down severely, removing the references to injokes and other things that are unencyclopedic, and stating what the podcast is and why it's notable in simple, logical strokes.  If I were rewriting it, I would strip the article back to a few good, clear sentences.  Good places to learn about making an article are Reliable sources, Verifiability, Notability and Your first article.  I hope this helps!  Brilliant Pebble (talk) 06:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The number of downloads was misunderstood - at one point the show listed that it had near 1 million downloads over the entire course of the show...not PER episode, that's crazy. I apologize for the miscommunication, but didn't add download numbers to the actual article anyway.  I'll work to re-write the article per Wiki specs within the next 24 hours.Albertlentz (talk) 20:24, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * After a week on AfD, the article is still a mishmash of inside jokes and lots of unsubstantiated statements without good reliable sources. References in what are said to be reliable sources are either trivial or not about the podcast itself.  Changing my recommendation to Delete.  Brilliant Pebble (talk) 09:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kafziel Complaint Department 06:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Makes claims that aren't supported by the sources given, most of which are irrelevant and very few of which are reliable. Doesn't assert notability in any meaningful way. FatherJack92 (talk) 07:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per the excellent research by Brilliant Pebble. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  13:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep evidence that a podcast is widely downloaded should be sufficient to justify an article. Brilliant Pebble, as I usderstand it, recommends rewriting it, not deleting it. DGG (talk) 00:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see the evidence that it's widely downloaded, though. I've gone through the references list again just now, and one of the links given in the article describes their production schedule as "extremely erratic", while several of the others are talking about that Xfire debate thing, which the links seem to show may be notable...but the links don't seem to show that the Taverncast podcast (which is unrelated to Xfire) is notable.  Brilliant Pebble (talk) 01:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per Brilliant Pebble 69.242.109.19 (talk) 00:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  17:49, 24 July 2008 (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.