Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tiki Bar TV


 * 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 keep. Yes there were a lot of probable meatpuppets but even established users wanted to keep this article. W.marsh 23:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Tiki Bar TV

 * — (View AfD)

Found while clearing CAT:CSD backlog, tagged as, this is not a clear cut spam article as far as I can see. Opinions?

No Stance —— Eagle (ask me for help) 06:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

keep Forbes article establishes notability. The article should be cleaned up, not deleted. --Karnesky 07:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

keep certainly, it's one of the best video podcasts on the net right now. Featured in iTunes music sotre and many others. --madmck 02:12 pm, 5december 2006 (GMT) — Madmck (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

KEEP Tiki Bar TV is an Internet phenomenon that has been widely covered in the online and print media. By now, it has been well established that it is NOT a viral marketing campaign for alcohol makers. Quite frankly, I can't understand why anyone would nominate this article for deletion. Froese 14:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

KEEP Hear, hear Froese. The assertion that this is blatant advertising for a company, product, group or service is narrow-minded. TBTV is UNCONVENTIONAL and does not benefit from the brands that have been featured in earlier episodes of the podcast. Furthermore, it should be obvious to all that every effort has been made in later episodes to try and obscure branding. Is it possible to find out what entries in this talk are considered worthy of the spam tag? These items could then easily be cleaned up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nursebettyrawks (talk • contribs) — Nursebettyrawks (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Obvious KEEP Article may need a bit of cleanup, but Tiki Bar TV is definately notable. --Oscar Arias 16:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep Very notable. -Dr Haggis - Talk 17:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Tiki Bar TV was used as an example of a the capabilities of the video iPod during its big release. Jeff Macpherson also worked an agreement with Apple to show TBTV in Apple stores worldwide as apart of a 6 month promotion of the video iPod. This show has received notable press in newspapers and the creators have been interviewed on ETalk and Attack of the Show. This seems to meet WP:WEB just nicely. -Dr Haggis - Talk 16:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment For all of you claiming this podcast has been covered in reliable sources, do you mind linking to some of this coverage? Say it's been covered in outside sources without showing that this coverage actually exists doesn't mean much. NeoChaosX (he shoots, he scores!) 17:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Most known reliable sources are linked to on the article. Is there a particular claim that needs citation? -Dr Haggis - Talk 16:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep It seems easy to me to define TBTV as notable. It draws 300,000 viewers per segment. It has been written about in Forbes, BusinessWeek, and National Post. Successful television and movie actors have appeared on the show (see the article for a list). Also, Jeff Macpherson (the creator of TBTV) has been featured on the television show Attack of the Show!. Bpage 19:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Weak keep While the Forbes and Business Week sources are somewhat questionable in their trivality (the articles are mainly about podcasting, with Tiki Bar TV used as an example), the National Post article does focus about the show itself, thus counting as non-trivial coverage and passing WP:V. My keep would be stronger if there was at least one more example of non-trivial coverage. NeoChaosX (he shoots, he scores!) 20:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutral. I'm generally disinclined to support articles about podcasts, but this one has received some mainstream press coverage. However, the article is filled with trivialities such as a list of minor characters (some of whom appeared only once), cryptic plot descriptions for the episodes, and references to crossovers with other podcasts. The article could stand to be cut down significantly. --Metropolitan90 04:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

KEEP This little show has become a subculture hit and was one of the first successful video podcast on iTunes. --Ddspell 05:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Neutral / Comment While I have no opinion on this particular AfD, I would like to point out that the number of votes for or against any particular afd should be held in suspicion when a number of them follow the same non-standard formart: in this case, a number of people voting keep use all CAPS when writing keep and even more fail to place an asterik before writing keep. When something unusual like this occurs many times in one particular AfD and not in others, one must wonder who is doing the voting... --The Way 07:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the deletion nomination was mentioned on a forum. I expect many well-meaning, but misguided editors with single purpose accounts to comment on this. Presumably, the closing admin will account accordingly. ScottW 23:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Rather than looking at the style they wrote their vote in, I think it is better to look at their contribution history. --Karnesky 17:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Note - Nice to see that all of you think to keep based on notability, but please read the nomination. I am also concerned about . Please keep that in mind. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 20:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that the article isn't blatant spam & doesn't qualify for db-spam. The article is on a notable/encyclopedic topic, so therefore should be cleaned up. --Karnesky 17:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Note - Article was tagged "Spam" by drive-by tagger "82.153.197.120" without stating any examples on how it was Spam. Make a case for deletion and we can discuss the various merits and shortcommings of Article. Without a real case for deletion, we are just going to keep getting notability arguments.-Dr Haggis - Talk 20:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per being the rare video podcast receiving mainstream media coverage. To the question above about db-spam, I don't think this one fits into that category. Looking back at the original article, I don't believe that the author has an affiliation with the podcast. And while the tone of certain parts of the article isn't great (ex. "the show contains seemingly effortless humour", it's not really worded as an advertisement. Certainly nothing that requires a substantial rewrite. ScottW 23:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Has had plenty of articles written about them. Notable podcast. --Oakshade 03:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't think this is spam/pure advert. No deletion necessary. MrMacMan 08:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * KEEP Overall I found it to be good article, thank you for your time. Rcehoppe 08:24, 11 December 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.