Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Utopod


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 00:56, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Utopod

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Raising AfD as proposed deletion was contested in July. Concern is that this podcast show does not meet WP:WEB notability requirements at this time. Breno talk 06:34, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 25 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:41, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep. If it is on-going with a sizeable audience (which I don't know), then I guess it's worth keeping and generally notable. Dengero (talk) 16:46, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, I'm seeing a bit of secondary source coverage complemented by participation from multiple different notable authors. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 00:01, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment would you mind listing the secondary sources found on here or the article? Going through the references on the article the Swiss newspaper article is in French, the 2007 Boing Boing article does start to establish notability of the podcast, and the last two are primary sources. I've yet to see multiple non-trivial published works. --Breno talk 01:50, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - There's a mention of Utopod in Le Temps February 7, 2008, but that appears to be it. Does not meet WP:WEB notability requirements at this time. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 08:51, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 00:56, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley   Huntley  01:46, 15 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - Not notable. Puffy.--Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 23:55, 15 November 2012 (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.