Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TechPhile (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 of the debate was Delete  Sceptr e  ( Talk  ) 20:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

TechPhile
non-notable podcast self promotion; Alexa traffic ranking of 1,788,717; 15.7k Google hits (none in Google news) Hosterweis 03:21, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I'd also like to point out that Wikipedia is not a web directory, and TechPhile doesn't meet any of the criteria on WP:WEB. -Hosterweis 03:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Having a tertiary connection to Leo Laporte is not enough to make this podcast notable. --Aaron 03:45, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above comments. Certainly not notable. --Timecop 04:08, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above, not high enough alexa, non-notable Sethie 04:11, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete useless and selfish self promoting entry Blackmanheartiez 01:17, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - useless advertising - Femmina 04:24, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - Per above --Depakote 15:15, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom. useless.Dustimagic 20:01, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete I like how it claims to have "interviews with leading figures in the tech world". Hahaha. Tapir 20:48, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - self-promoting spam, nn, unencyclopedic. Eusebeus 03:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above WhiteNight T 08:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, fails WP:WEB. Proto t c 10:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Per nom. Incognito 17:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. This passed a previous Afd only last October.  Once again, nearly all of the above votes are party-line bloc voting as part of Timecop's war on blogs.  A number of these bloc voters including Timecop himself are self-proclaimed GNAA members, so this smells like mischief.  Closing admin please take note.  15K google hits is actually quite a lot, and since the whole phenomenon of podcasting is fairly new (the term only came into widespread use last year), it is hardly surprising that Alexa numbers don't yet match those for text blogs or other genres that have been around longer.  An apples-to-apples comparison would involve comparing its traffic with other podcasts. -- Curps 20:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Curps, I think that axe you have to grid is getting in the way of your better judgement here. The first afd was basically uncited opinion - here we have variafiable information that it is not notable. Your arguments seems to be is that it gets a fair amount of google hits, which is open to manipulation and does not meet WP:WEB. WhiteNight T 21:15, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't have an axe to grind. I'm just very suspicious of GNAA members with an openly advertised agenda, systematically voting as a bloc on every single article listed in a "war on blogs" hitlist.  Some of their nominated targets do seem to be suitably obscure; I just wonder if they're not trying to sneak some more notable targets past the rest of us, mixed in along with the junk.  For instance, until as recently as five days ago they had The Volokh Conspiracy in their "war on blogs" hitlist queue, until some anon IP removed it .  That raised a huge red flag because The Volokh Conspiracy is an A-list legal blog (blawg), blogrolled from Instapundit and many other A-list blogs, and the idea of merging it into Eugene Volokh makes about as much sense as merging Seinfeld into Jerry Seinfeld.  Nominating it for AfD would be prima facie bad faith.  They've cleaned up their "war on blogs" page somewhat... they've removed the "terminated" list of successful kills, and they've switched from using external links (which don't show under "what links here") to regular internal links.  But still I think we're entitled to ask whether improving Wikipedia is actually their objective.  Historically very few websites have been left in an improved state after a GNAA campaign that targeted them. -- Curps 22:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Kindly shut up and stop polluting the afd thanks, save the rant for your blog. Wikipedia is not about your opinions and this fails WP:WEB and therefore should be deleted due to the policy. If it isn't a clear case of the GNAA enforcing the policy I don't know what is. Incognito 23:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't have a blog. See also Civility. -- Curps 23:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia (AfD debates and similar in particular) is about everybody's opinions. And considering that there's a very clear delete majority at the moment, I see especially little reason for you to feel the need to suppress your opposition. Also do see Civility. EldKatt (Talk) 17:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was under the impression that encyclopedias were about facts. Won't happen again. Incognito 23:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I assumed your comment referred to Curps's "rant", so I evidently misread you. Apologies. EldKatt (Talk) 09:44, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe mr Curps is looking for something to fill his blog. Please find it somewhere else and not here, this is strictly related with TechPhile. Thanks to the GNAA !!! Blackyheartiez 20:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Naturally, the above is your first contribution to Wikipedia, ever. -- Curps 23:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Naturally, You fail. Can someone tell Curps to stop using his privilege as admin to threaten people here? I dont feel confortable writting and supporting this page while he's here ready to pull the trigger Blackyheartiez 20:32, 10 January 2006
 * That's interesting, I don't see him even mentioning he's an admin here, or threatening anyone. I just see you being quite rude to him. --Phroziac . o ºO (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 16:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I see him writing nonsense and alleging that the GNAA isn't working in the interests of wikipedia. -- Femmina 17:29, 11 January 2006 (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.