Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The First 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 only argument to keep this only lists generic reasons not to delete hypothetical articles: no substantive reason to keep this article has been provided. Vanamonde (talk) 11:04, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

The First Podcast

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Podcast with no assertion of notability. All "references" are primary source links to the podcast itself or news articles about topics that the podcast has covered (and never reference the podcast). The creator of the article, User:In.tripletime appears to be a host of the podcast, which is an undeclared WP:COI. Axem Titanium (talk) 05:53, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Keep: Am article creator, here to give points for consideration. Give it a chance! There's potential.
 * Notability of entertainers can be established by them having some sort of significant following. This criteria is, of course, vague and probably subjective, as discussed in WP:ARBITRARY. What counts as a significant following? While it is understandable that Wikipedia is not interested in cataloguing every fly-by-night podcast, there is obviously a common sense threshold at some point in terms of podcast fan numbers, beyond which it could be argued as silly by-the-numbers rule-following to not consider it for article candidacy. A show must not reach Joe Rogan numbers for an article about it to be appropriate; the sum of its points of significance can be argued to be sufficient. A show that ranks in the top 10 and top 25 iTunes charts on a somewhat regular basis, is heard by thousands of people per month , and has served as a platform for major politicians to announce their next campaign may very well be worth keeping.
 * Conflict of interest has been declared. Conflict of interest is not criteria in and of itself for article deletion, but a guideline for user behavior. No contentious or unsourced claims have been included in article. No significant further edits have been submitted by self beyond initial crafting of article. No attempts to hide unsavory information about article subject have been made.
 * Primary source links are not inherently bad. If the information being cited is irrelevant, however, it can and should be removed.
 * References to news articles about topics are there to meet citation requirements for statements on Wikipedia. They are not intended as "proof of notability", but to demonstrate that the thing being claimed is, well, correct.
 * Article may qualify for improvement instead of deletion.

(Am aware of self-interest in having this article remain undeleted, but have attempted a neutral rationale. Also am aware that Imgur links are not ideal as references, but I used them for the sake of ease. They can be demonstrated elsewhere if needed. Don't demolish a house while it is still being built. ) In.tripletime (talk) 23:06, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

I would also like to note that multiple AfDs have been created by the same user in immediate succession for completely unrelated articles to which I have contributed. Said user appears to be in good standing with the community, and this is not an attempt to suggest the AfDs were created in bad faith whatsoever. However, it is possible that he or she is being a bit overzealous or dislikes me or my contributions on some level; and, as such, the consideration for deletion of this article could be the result of external and perhaps irrelevant issues. In.tripletime (talk) 23:29, 13 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Strongly insinuating that something was done in bad faith, and then pointedly backing off from the suggestion, is still assuming bad faith, my friend. I nominated *two* of your articles for deletion after I noticed that more than 50% of all your edits are on COI/self-promotion topics. Please keep in mind that the AFD process is an adjudication of current notability, not hypothetical future notability. Above, you have basically made a "Can anyone really define notability?" argument, and then shown no further evidence of notability in the form of reliable secondary sources (and quoted a bunch of essays, which are not guidelines or policies). Axem Titanium (talk) 00:32, 14 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete Axem has made the right call, I'm not finding the independent coverage that would merit notability per WP:GNG or WP:NWEB. Catrìona (talk) 13:44, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - I don’t see anything here or at the article that proves it meets the WP:GNG, and the sole “keep” !vote so far has a pretty obvious conflict of interest. Sergecross73   msg me  03:56, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete for failing notability guidelines at WP:GNG and WP:NWEB. This is not a case for giving the article a chance, but a case of the subject not being notable enough and the subject asking us to wait until they become notable. When subject is notable, an article will be created. Until then it's WP:TOOSOON. Ifnord (talk) 02:33, 20 December 2018 (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.