Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The 404 podcast


 * 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. The keeps either debated how other articles should be deleted (not a relevant argument) or failed to clearly establish notability, as opposed to the delete vvotes which were clear in their arguments. I am also salting the page, given the consensus for that here. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 13:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The 404 podcast

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

Article has been recreated several times without significant improvement over the version which was deleted as a result of this AFD. An administrator has declined G4 speedy deletion due to questions about the result of that previous AFD. Reopening the discussion. RadioFan (talk) 14:33, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  --  treelo  radda  17:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * delete it's been tagged already and it's bieng worked on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BlueCottonCandy/The_404_podcast  Antonio López  (desu) 20:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. I am amenable to speedy deleting the article (G4) and not salting the title, if it's going to be worked on in userspace. —C.Fred (talk) 20:51, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong delete and salt. Complete failure to provide independent reliable sources. I speedy deleted this yesterday under criterion G4, reposting of deleted material (see WP:Articles for deletion/The 404). When I deleted it yesterday, I also userfied the text, advising the editor to locate independent reliable sources. Discussion about that was placed at Talk:The 404 podcast - and that page was tagged and was visible even as the next iteration of the article was created. It's still there as of right now. Since the article was recreated today, I take that as a sign that other editors concede that there are no further independent sources to be found.
 * I considered opening a deletion review thread about the non-speedy-deletion today. While I feel that the first AfD was closed properly, I think it's best to get a clear consensus on the merits of the subject, specifically its verifiability. However, if this AfD closes with a delete result, I think the title should be salted - since twice attempts have been made to create it but in neither case would a good article have come of it. —C.Fred (talk) 20:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * keep This podcast has more notability than many other articles on Wikipedia, so I am wondering why this particular podcast is under fire. The article could use some work and is slightly one sided, but that can be worked on. I say wait 30 days and see what becomes of this article, then if the article is still one sided with other errors, then reconsider deleting it. I still would not salt the article either way. It seems like people from other competing podcasts are trying to ensure that 404 doesn't make Wikipedia. Patman21 (talk) 22:08, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Let's focus on this article not others beside WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a good argument to make in an AFD. This isn't about a podcast rivalry (do those really exist?  that's really sad) It's about meeting the same notability and reference guidelines that apply to all articles.--RadioFan (talk) 22:33, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete and salt until such time that a userfied article can be produced that meets notability guidelines. This has been recreated too many times and I don't see a problem with the conclusion to the previous discussion on this article.   Apparently the kinder method of userfying it and allowing it to be moved back when improved wont work.--RadioFan (talk) 22:33, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * keep It passes very well the google test for notability. - avsa — 189.122.80.235 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment what exactly is the "Google test for notability". All the google news hits are coming from CNET, it's producer which makes it a primary source and not applicable as a reference to show notability here.  This subject may be notable but not in its current form.  Better references are needed and its the responsiblity of the editors who add the information to properly cite it.  Leaving it for X amount of time for someone else to do really isn't a good option.--RadioFan (talk) 22:33, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, counting Google hits is specifically excluded as a measure of notability. So, a "Google test" accomplishes nothing. —C.Fred (talk) 01:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * keep Based upon the logic presented prior and as I am returning from an extended hiatus relative to Wikipedia, I can only state that if we are obliged by standards to vaporize this and salt the title then all podcasts should be considered non-notable and thereby be deleted and salted. The same opprobrium reserved for garage bands and your first grade teacher would likely be well applied to all podcasts that presently have entries. Smk (talk) 22:38, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Further to my vote: While noting the raising of ALLORNOTHING, I will also say that a look at TWiT also shows a paucity of verifiable sources and references only materials TWiT or its collaborators have produced. The body of literature out there on podcasts is small as is anything that looks at the media landscape.  For the reasons enunciated over the history of this ill-fated article, I do not see a way for it to be resolved without violating No Original Research. Smk (talk) 22:51, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment You say keep. Then why are you marking all the TWiT podcasts for speedy deletion? Either I'm missing something, or you're being a hypocrite (no offence intended)! --DanielPharos (talk) 22:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * @Smk - All podcasts which fail our inclusion guidelines should be deleted, yes. As should any articles that don't meet the criteria. If that means we have to ravage podcasts, they deserve to be ravaged. Greg Tyler (t &bull; c) 22:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: I'm not all that impressed on how Graeme Bartlett overturned Julian Colten's close with a simple "I think it should have been a no consensus". Then take it to DRV; you don't simply recreate it. Tan   &#124;   39  22:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note, I did not recreate the article, just declined the speedy delete, if the issues raised in the earlier AfD were addressed it is worth having another AfD. The previous AfD was very evenly balanced on keeps and deletes with apparently valid arguments on both sides.  It looks like there may be lobbying from somwhere to keep this article.  And Tan could even now speedy delete, I would not restore it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong delete and salt. The 404 podcast as a topic has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. There are no sources that address the subject directly in detail, and significant original research was needed to extract the content of this article especially the 'Inside Jokes & Common References' & 'Notable Guests' sections.There is no significant coverage more than a trivial mention other than the podcast's own blog. I question whether it is ethical that the show hosts are actively directing their listeners to re-create the entry because they were unhappy it was correctly deleted before (http://twitter.com/the404/status/2778778767)I see no sufficient coverage from reliable sources to meet the general notability guideline.All the sources provided for the article are links from their own blog (cnet website) - primary sources. One link is from the personal blog of the former main host of the podcast who is also a current regular guest. I posit that the current hosts have a massive campaign to re-create the entry based on a need to self promote. There is evidence of an ongoing attempt to get their listeners to re-create the article and add as much detail as possible in the hope that it is not re-deleted (http://twitter.com/the404/status/2798784442). I propose that the show is simply not notable. The show has significant hits in Google owing to their status of being one of the podcasts produced by CNET (now CBS interactive), a for profit concern with a huge footprint on the web. CNET has had years of google search engine optimization to appear on the top of pages as part of their business model is to attract advertising for their podcasts. Even if google search results were a credible reason to demonstrate notability - this fact should be considered.If re-deleted the show hosts will undoubtedly lobby their listeners to repost the article(http://twitter.com/the404/status/2798784442)This has happened before and will happen again.

user:callsfromthepublic —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.103.37.148 (talk) 23:05, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * keep This is clearly a notable article, The 404 is a podcast produced by CNET, a notable organization that produces notable content including other podcasts that have been considered notable by Wikipedia standards. From the information on their page they have clearly had notable guests and are reporting notable news and information. The charge that the hosts are making an attempt to create a Wikipedia entry for the express purpose of self-promotion is ridiculous. I seriously doubt that a Wikipedia article will drive that much traffic to a podcast. The idea that this article is not notable enough for wikipedia standards seems to be more a akin to some sort of juvenile internet flame war. There is no reason this article should be deleted so it should remain and hopefully as time goes on any references and sources can be appropriately added.--DavidPomeranzRox (talk) 23:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC) — DavidPomeranzRox (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * If you do some additional research regarding C-Net, hardly any of its writers and editors have their own Wikipedia pages. So, I wouldn't use the argument that C-Net by association should make it notable. Notability is not by association. Also, the hosts are not behind this article - the fans are. And last, notability is not a work-in-progress activity. You don't create an article and then months later become notable. The article should be notable the very pico-second it is published no Wikipedia. Groink (talk) 04:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * delete The desire by the hosts of the 404 to get a listing on Wikipedia (by bribery if possible, see http://www.cnet.com/8301-13952_1-10083743-81.html?tag=mncol;title) is only a means to become 'legit' (http://www.cnet.com/8301-13952_1-10154721-81.html). I would think one becomes legit/noteable, then gets a wiki page, rather than the other way around.  That aside, while they do put out a mostly enjoyable show to listen to, it at most merits mention under CNET, not on its own.  CNET, being as big as it is, could easily host its own wiki for the fans of the show to list all the inside jokes, notes, etc, that is often listed as a reason for the wiki page to exist.  Wikis != Wikipedia, after all.--Psychopez (talk) 23:53, 23 July 2009 (UTC) — Psychopez (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Interesting that the last two votes were by completely new accounts. Tan   &#124;   39  23:55, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "Bribery?" I think not.  It was a joke (the show is funny, after all).  Unfortunately, I think some personal biases have entered this debate, as neither of the 2 above references are accurate.  As I mentioned before, discussion about a Wikipedia page (by the hosts, listeners, or anyone) should be irrelevant.  If the entry is notable (which I think it is) and worthy, then it should exist.  I don't think that anyone is attempting to circumvent the Wikipedia guidelines, either (by first creating a wiki page and then making the show "legit/notable").  Whether or not discussions have occured about a Wikipedia page is irrelevant, in my opinion.  People talk about Wikipedia and its contents for a variety of reasons, all valid.  And CNET should not have to "host its own wiki;" Wikipedia is here for all sorts, regardless of affiliation, so long as entries meet certain criteria. Jcfay (talk) 11:42, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Here's the problem: The evidence provided by Psychopez prove that The 404 is asking people to create the page for them. I'm assuming The 404 is aware that it is not allowed to create an article about itself - that would be a conflict of interest. I don't watch the show, but I've been told by friends who do that The 404 wants to use the Wikipedia article as reference, for example, to look up the inside jokes related to the show. The reason why this information is relevant is that it demonstrates motive to circumvent the notability requirement by creating the article, and then spend the following months developing the notability. I'm a deletionist, and we believe in establishing the notability before the article is created. We don't like creating articles just for the hell of it, and then wait for the article to develop. Too many articles like this become lost, and fall into stub land for eternity. Deletionists used this same argument when the Michael Jackson death article was created before the fit hit the shan, and the article was deleted. The article was re-created about a day later WHEN it was determined that the death was not natural. This is an example of proper procedure - let an issue marinate and develop before creating the article. In the case of The 404, you assume that the show will be a success and will be notable. That's what inclusionists and optimists believe. Groink (talk) 12:04, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * In fact, there IS an active wiki about the hosts, the inside jokes, etc: see http://the404.wikia.com/ with 500+ pages. &mdash; Catherine\talk 16:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * About ten more references added since my last mention, but all the new ones still point to within the C-Net domain. And, @the404 sent out a friendly tweet "Thanks so much to all contributors to our Wikia: F*ck Wikipedia, [Wikia] is all we need, feel free to dive in and edit!" I told you they were trying to use Wikipedia as a reference tool. Groink (talk) 22:47, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * keep it is a well known podcast with many devoted followers who want to spread the 404. the longer the page is up the more external sources will be added.  this is much more notable than some of the other items on wikipedia, such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shimoisaka_Station which is a one sentence article.  the 404 is continuing to grow in popularity, they deserve their own wikipedia page  — 99.135.33.176 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Several problems with your argument. First, all train stations in Japan are documented on Wikipedia as a wiki project. Second, inclusion is not an argument that has credibility on Wikipedia. All inclusion means is that all the other articles are also facing the same issue as this article, and may lead to action being put on those articles. Groink (talk) 03:24, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * keep I'll admit first that I am a listener of this podcast. At the same time, I do think a lot of the extreme opposition against the existence of the article (and the podcast itself) seems a bit premature and somewhat unwarranted.  Yes, the article itself definitely needs some clean up and professionalism.  At the same time, in terms of notability, this is a podcast for one of the largest tech resources on the web.  This podcast has repeatedly entered among the top rankings on iTunes among its category and has become among the first of the CNET shows to receive official corporate sponsorship and advertising (from Becks Beer).  There is at the very least room for argument for legitimacy and notability for this podcast and it should only be fair to grant a fair amount of time for users, fans or not, to append the wiki with relevant information and references.  If really after time, the article is still not up to standard, deletion can be considered.  However, accusations of "bribery" and insidious Twitter campaigns and the calls to salt the page seem to be a bit excessive for a seemingly innocuous article (this article is far from anything controversial).  The nature of this show is a bit playful and cheeky - but to allege some conspiracy by the hosts to damage the integrity of Wikipedia would be very debatable.  Finally, against the proposal of salting, the podcast is also continuing to grow in viewership - even if the decision later on is to delete it, the option to revisit at a later date should be available.  Dc82 (talk) 01:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "Premature"? Five months is plenty of time to find sources. None have been found, and there have been editors working on the article since the last AfD. —C.Fred (talk) 01:51, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * What "five months?" As far as I know, this wiki had been deleted and unavailable since it's last deletion. The podcast has definitely continued to grow during the past few months when the wiki was deleted.  It's very hard to edit/add anything if the article is extremely difficult to reach (in a deleted state).  At the very least, as the wiki is up now, time should be granted for users to attempt to address many of these issues and fix the article.--Dc82 (talk) 03:34, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I would agree with Dc82 on this. As someone who is relatively new to Wikipedia, I found that navigating and locating deleted items is challenging.  I would also agree with Dc82 that some of the criticism here really seems unwarranted, inaccurate (regarding the alleged Twitter "campaigns," "bribery," and circumvention of Wikipedia rules), and perhaps of malicious intent. Jcfay (talk) 11:50, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Failure to understand notability guidelines and the irrelevence of other articles that don't meet them  Chzz  ►  01:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete and salt And I use Buzz Out Loud as a baseline for this. BOL achieved notability by becoming the top podcast on iTunes, among other reasons. The 404 comes nowhere close to achieving any form of notability. Remember now that notability does not mean thousands of people know about the show. The show, rather, should contribute something that reaches the general popular culture. This article relies too much on WP:SELFPUB, and I'm afraid that we're going to see a flood of fans creating content on their web pages in order to be used as sources for this article. As I suggested in the talk page, create this article off-line and then publish it when it has satisfied notability and include reliable 3rd-party sources, rather than creating the article and then spending weeks making the article compliant. I see far too articles being create prematurely. Groink (talk) 03:12, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "BOL achieved notability by becoming the top podcast on iTunes" By that standard, the 404 is valid, as it (the video podcast version) has definitely made it on the iTunes top 10 in tech, I believe under it's "new and notable" section.--Dc82 (talk) 03:34, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * BUT, besides doing your own primary source research, are there other reliable sources that state this fact? Thing such as looking at a top-10 list, Google search results, etc. are all examples of original research, which is against Wikipedia policy. Groink (talk) 03:49, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * More about the current references. Of the fourteen currently listed, only four are outside of C-Net or Ziff-Davis (Z-D owns C-Net.) One link is to Apple's iTunes - its distributor. One link points to YouTube which is actually not a reliable source under WP guidelines. One links to IMDB, and has nothing to do with the show, and the others are blogs which to date are generally not reliable sources under WP guidelines. Groink (talk) 04:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Especially since this article was just speedy deleted with the instructions that it doesn't have a place in mainspace until there is notability backed up by reliable sources. —C.Fred (talk) 04:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete and salt I listen to the 404 podcast and it is an entertaining show for people of a certain taste. However, it is plainly obvious they have been caught doing what has become their modus operandi of self promotion. To those who say the show is notable since it has reached the top of Itunes before; do you know how that happened? not organically, the show solicited its listeners to post 5 star reviews on Itunes in order to game the system. This is well known to regular listeners of the show. The only saving grace is that this method of gaming Itunes is temporary. The show hosts have similarly repeatedly lobbied their listeners to 1. create a wiki page and 2. add external sources to prevent deletion (http://twitter.com/rhapsodyartist/status/2804423274) This last message explicitly links to THIS discussion page to get their listeners to vote to keep the article. It is humorous to see they even think there is a hidden wikipedia insider agenda againsts them (http://twitter.com/rhapsodyartist/status/2805762921) (http://twitter.com/rhapsodyartist/status/2781736545) What I find most blatant is that whereas the show hosts declare they will themselves not edit their own wikipedia page, they tell their listeners EXACTLY what to put on the page (evidence: The404 episode388 http://feeds.feedburner.com/cnet/the404video?format=xml 15:05 minute mark). I implore you to watch this part - they are 'begging'

67.82.206.9 (talk) 13:38, 24 July 2009 (UTC)DarthMaul/DarthWiki
 * Perhaps I haven't gone far back enough to past episodes, but at least during the time I did see the 404 video podcast on the top 10 in iTunes, I don't recall them telling people to post 5 star reviews. And with that point, BOL has actively asked for 5 star posts during their shows and for a while, even called out each person on air who gave them such a rating.  To your point about the hosts "lobbying," I think what you call "blatant," it's definitely one extreme view of what they're doing - one can just as easily make the argument that they're trying to respect the rules of Wikipedia by asking third parties to edit the page. I'm sure especially as people in the tech industry, it's probably not that hard for them to log on someone's computer and edit the page themselves if they really wanted to.  Even in recent episodes as the Wikipedia issue arose, they weren't asking listeners to sabotage or ruin Wikipedia; they were trying to address the issues brought up here, in terms of notability, references, etc.  They asked their listeners not to just post up filler or useless information, but to try to find references outside of CNET, relevant information, etc.  I just find it funny that there seems to be so much anger and opposition directed towards this page and the hosts; what some try to spin as "self-promotion," others might see as their opinion as a right to exist (as an article), that they do do legitimate work and it should be worth nothing.  Again, we're not talking about some kid's webcam show that reaches 15 views.  It's one of CNET's top podcasts that not only is continuing to grow in viewership (currently nearly 100k downloads and 200k impressions of their podcasts each month), and is notable enough to attract corporate sponsors (Becks Beer).--Dc82 (talk) 15:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete and salt (as recreation expected). Many sources, but nothing reliable. Little notability, and certainly no inherent notability "because it's CNET". Seems an obvious close to me, so I'm slightly perturbed by all these keep !votes with very weak reasoning. Greg Tyler (t &bull; c</b>) 19:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment we must be going for a record for comments from WP:SPAs here.--RadioFan (talk) 22:40, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

This podcast should be kept because of its unbelievable ability to land amazing/Famous celebrity guests. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.166.226.83 (talk) 23:50, 24 July 2009

Treat Wikipedia as if it is a research paper you're writing in college. Any college professor would tell his students that qualifying sources, avoiding using POV, and using itself as a source are taboo. Groink (talk) 01:42, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Ripping through all the dialog here, the "keep" is making the following arguments:
 * 1) The show made a top-10 list on iTunes. I asked for a third-party reference pointing this out. None so far.
 * 2) The show pops up on Google a gazillion jillian times. Google search results are not reliable, and proving such figures is considered original research, which is against Wikipedia policy.
 * 3) The show has a large following. As I said in the past, this does not qualify as notability. A guy who ran over a crowd of people, and then appear on CNN, MSNBC and FOX does not make him notable.
 * 4) The guys at The 404 are encouraging its fans to better the article. All I've seen for the last 24 hours is a bunch of notable guests added to the list, and a bunch more references pointing to C-Net, which I pointed out as WP:SELFPUB. Why isn't this point being made to these editors? Under WP:OR, the show is not its own resource!! It is like trying to prove Jesus exists by quoting from the Holy Bible.
 * 5) Each of the notable guests may have his/her/its own article on Wikipedia, but none of them has the Midas touch where just appearing makes the show notable. Living in Hawaii, a tiny burger joint in Honolulu where Barack Obama once worked at does not make the burger joint notable.
 * 6) The show has a major sponsor. That also does not qualify as notability. The PBA Tour has a major sponsor, and Lumber Liquidators the sponsor isn't even notable to have an article of its own. The Tour itself makes its own notable status.

Keep Meets notability criterion set forth in WP:WEB by virtue of being produced through a respected online publisher that is independent of the creators(CNET and CBS Interactive). Ngaskill (talk) 04:29, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The 404 is NOT a web page. It is a podcast. In case you think podcast = web, it doesn't. Podcasts are the same as a radio show. Groink (talk) 07:25, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I never claimed this was a webpage but that not withstanding the guideline is NOT called WP:WEBPAGE. This is a WP guideline for all web based content which verbatim includes podcasts. Ngaskill (talk) 17:21, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It doesn't meet criterion 1 as it is not "the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." It doesn't meet criterion 2 as it has not "won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization." And it doesn't meet criterion 3 as it is not "distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators". It is distributed by CNET who, the lead says, "it is produced by". That's not independent; hence it fails all criteria. <b style="color:#00A">Greg Tyler</b> <sup style="color:#A00;font-weight:bold;font-size:10px;">(<b style="color:#A00">t</b> &bull; <b style="color:#A00">c</b>) <Small>17:33, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This article fails WP:WEB in that it doesn't meet any of the 3 criteria. As discussed above, there is a lack of significant coverage in 3rd party sources (nearly all sources found so far are primary sources or blogs), there is no indication of any well known awards, and based on the arguments above ("produced by CNET"), the distribution is not independent of the creators.  This last point makes me think that maybe the best course of action is merging into CNET.  The "morning zoo" type antics on the show itself regarding encouraging listeners/viewers to astroturf only hurts notability arguments here and is just plain disruptive.--RadioFan (talk) 17:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It really seems like there is no assumption of good faith on the part of many of the no votes here. While this podcast's tactics, many editors may find distasteful, they are not a disqualifier for the page's existence.  I am not defending this article in its current form, it needs significant work but I stand firmly that the notability standard set forth in WP:WEB is met here.  The distribution is clearly different from the creators here.  This is a podcast by editors that is published by a major media outlet (CNET) which is in-turn a subsidiary of a major media conglomerate (CBS).  The way I would interpret that guideline is preventing self-publications (i.e. I set up a microphone in my basement and put it on my own website.)  It seems that minimum bar has been met to me.  If we can agree that this standard is met, the article then needs to be edited for an encyclopedic neutral point of view and removal of original research.  Ngaskill (talk) 18:51, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I, and other editors here, disagree. This is clearly a CNET production. The shows email address is @cnet.com, the podcast is listed in iTunes under artist "CNET.com".  Previous comments on this article identified it as a CNET production.  That was when it was used as an argument to show its notability. Now its being argued not to be a CNET production in hopes of fitting it into WP:WEB's criteria.  This isn't a game of save the article, we cant have it both ways.  Also, please don't accuse editors of bad faith and let's focus on discussing the merits of this article.  This isn't an us vs. them contest.  This discussion is quickly becoming very polarized.  Disagreement doesn't equate to bad faith.  Also, while the podcast's tactics are not a disqualifier for a Wikipedia article, they need to be taken into account by the closing admin in determining if creation protection should be applied should the outcome here be delete.--RadioFan (talk) 19:17, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Right, disagreement isn't bad faith but I'm also not casually calling the other side's position "morning zoo" type antics. The guidelines don't state "the sources must have different email addresses" but rather that "the content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster."  I contend that CNET both on its own and as an affiliate of CBS Corporation meets that standard because it is not editing, scripting, choosing the content, scheduling guests etc. for this podcast.  To draw an analogy, we don't assume that Chris Matthews's TV program is "the same" as MSNBC though they likely supply him a paycheck and an email address. Ngaskill (talk) 23:13, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't see your argument at all. As publishers of the content, they are not independent and hence not reliable. They don't script the program, true. But they do have a conflict of interest. By promoting content that your website is in charge of the distribution, you are not providing a reliable source. I don't see how you can contend that at all. Chris Matthews's TV program isn't the same as MSNBC (I assume as I'm English), but we wouldn't use MSNBC to prove the program's notability. MSNBC and CNET are involved in the 'fore mentioned situations, and thus cannot be treated as independent or reliable sources with regard to that subject. Picture it like a conflict of interest, if that helps. <b style="color:#00A">Greg Tyler</b> <sup style="color:#A00;font-weight:bold;font-size:10px;">(<b style="color:#A00">t</b> &bull; <b style="color:#A00">c</b>) 23:40, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * This argument doesn't fit the policy. We aren't arguing about sourcing but about notability (I'll admit the article needs worked on for multiple things like sourcing and neutral point of view.)  You claim that "but we wouldn't use MSNBC to prove the program's notability" however the guidline for WP:WEB says otherwise.  Sorry to quote it but it seems that perhaps people would like to assume what it says:

"web-specific content[3] is deemed notable based on meeting any one of the following criteria." ... "3. The content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster;[7] except for trivial distribution including content being hosted on sites without editorial oversight (such as YouTube, MySpace, GeoCities, Newgrounds, personal blogs, etc.)."

To me that indicates that the threshold of notability is met when a major media organization publishes web content provided it is independent (i.e. a press release or public relations statement wouldn't qualify nor would a company's blog itself.) If someone wants to make an argument to delete instead of improve for reasons other than notability I'm open to it. Ngaskill (talk) 00:21, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't understand why you're keep pointing out that The 404 and its people who produce and star in it are "independent" of C-Net and CBS. Wilson, Jeff and Justin are employees of C-Net, just like the others such as Ina Fried, Tom Krazit and all the other writers and editors of C-Net. The article itself says they are. Is there any source outside of C-Net that establishes the fact that C-Net has absolutely NO editorial, control or other input in the program? Would the show dare to trample over a C-Net sponsor? C-Net is "respected" when it reports un-biased news reporting. BUT, when C-Net entered the blogging and podcasting business, its respect amongst the Internet community can change. Many people do not consider blogging to be objective reporting, much like for example people do not respect Fox News or MSNBC because of its leaning towards the right or left respectively. If one were to read the comments in many of its news articles, there is mass confusion between what C-Net sees as news vs a blog. As a matter of fact, Wikipedia itself mentions that blogging is meant to bypass the editorial process. And as such, people may no longer respect C-Net as a neutral news source. So in short, if you're declaring WP:WEB #3, you have the burden of proof that The 404 is factually independent of C-Net, AND that C-Net is still a respected news source. Groink (talk) 03:37, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: One other thing I want to point out, and that is WP:FANCRUFT. This essay basically suggests that if a large percentage of this article, such as the inside jokes listing or the guest list, cannot for the life of it be verified by independent sources, the article can actually lean towards WP:NOT, where "the specific focus of the discussion may be that the article is a compilation of facts that reliable sources outside of fan-based reliable sources have not found interesting enough to publish." To paraphrase, others can WP:SELFPUB in order to boost the independent sources, but if these kinds of sources are overwhelmingly being used, then the article can be interpreted as not being notable. Sources outside of the clique should be talking about show. Groink (talk) 04:40, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The standard is not a respected news source but a respected source right? CNETTV which is the "catch all" for all of their organization's video podcasting was a nominee and people's choice winner of the webby awards 2009 as per http://www.webbyawards.com/webbys/current.php?media_id=97.  As to establishing the process of their story selection this seems to me to be an unreasonably high bar to set, I highly suspect this level of specificity in an outside published resource exists for very few broadcast or media sources in general.  Certainly there are copy editors and guidelines set by the network and you're probably right that it would be frowned upon to deride a sponsor but I suspect that would be the case for almost any commerical broadcaster, not really sure how that threatens its independence.
 * Two problems there. First, it is a known fact that the Webby Awards is a pay-only award. If C-Net did not pay to be in the award selection, then it would not have been picked in the first place. The article's criticism section explains this, therefore that source is not credible. Second, what you're basically saying is that a company as a whole can be reliable, but its services may not. That's like saying AT&T's 3G network sucks, but AT&T is still a reliable company. I beg to differ on this logic. If C-Net loses its credibility on its primary product - news and information, then I can't see how one can still stay that C-Net is a reliable source. It just does not click! Groink (talk) 05:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * In looking at the listings on Alexa, CNET averages the 70th most visited site on the internet and from what I can tell is fairly consistently the top rated English language technology themed website in their daily listings. It seems that in general the public is using this as a respected source.  Additionally, NewsCred which is a feedback service to rank the credibility of stories through sources is ranked 99.03% credible with a large same size.  http://www.newscred.com/source/show/name/cnet  Additionally while I understand there are complaints about the Webby Award system you must also take into account that this was the winner of the public vote award and I am also not aware of any comparable alternative major awards to use otherwise perhaps other editors can assist in that regard.  Ngaskill (talk) 07:10, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * As to the fancruft subject, I do agree this article needs significant work in that regard but that can be fixed, I don't think this is a reason to delete. There is at least enough objective content for the page to exist in a form comparable to many of the other podcast articles on wiki. Ngaskill (talk) 05:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep There are thousands of Wikipedia articles out there that are less notable than this podcast. The 404 is a podcast from CNET, a popular technology news site. The 404 was also featured on FOX News' Strategy Room a while back. I don't think you can say that about villages with less than hundred citizens. Clearly they have plenty of listeners, otherwise we wouldn't be having this heated discussion about the article. For me, this just proves their noteworthiness. --Pdedecker (talk) 10:17, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Following must be cited via references (and make them in the article - NOT on this talk page): WP:Notability. Also, notability must be permanent (WP:NTEMP).
 * Wikipedia is not a work in progress or a first draft (WP:IMPERFECT)
 * Avoid the following arguments and references: WP:OTHERSTUFF, WP:GOOGLEHITS, WP:INHERITED, WP:SELFPUB, and WP:POPULARITY. Groink (talk) 10:36, 27 July 2009 (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.