Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dj28 (talk | contribs) at 02:36, 24 January 2006. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

75 minutes

Podcast with no apparent notability. Stifle 08:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination, podcruft. Individual podcasts will never be notable unless Christian Slater starts one. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 09:01, Jan. 20, 2006
• Delete as non-notable podcast. —Quarl 2006-01-20 10:11Z
• No notability!?!? Why, it's 25% better than 60 Minutes. GWO
• Delete per Christian Slater and Freakofnurture. --Dragonfiend 15:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as podcruft. Eusebeus 20:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete. I think podcasts can be here if they can establish that they have a nationwide notability somewhere, within the article. I can think of a handful that would certainly qualify. This one, however, does not, and unless someone can assert its notability it should be deleted. Oh, and very funny, GWO. Grandmasterka 00:55, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, notable, one of the more widely-listened internet radio programs. Features interviews with notable artists. --Bk0 (Talk) 03:10, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, Top 60 rated and listened to podcasts at *Yahoo Podcasts. Noted by Yahoo by popularity: *Yahoo. By feed statistics, one of the Top 100 podcasts listed by Feedburner. Global audience of thousands. Most listened to, by download statistics, in 1. The U.S. 2. China 3. EU 4. Canada 5. Australia. Featured in popular music blogs such as Gapers Block, and other music blogs. As said before, is 25% better than 60 MInutes, and as a bonus, no Andy Rooney. The kicker, unfortunately, is that it has 5% less proof than Absolut Vodka. --wisewaif (Talk) 03:39, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per wisewaif, but with a caveat. There is no Arbitron or Alexa for podcasts so far, and it would be rather difficult to build one. If Yahoo Podcasts isn't one of the big fish in the pond, asserting that something is notable for appearing on Yahoo's list doesn't necessarily mean anything. That said, it is Yahoo, and on the scale of big fish overall they're a basking shark, so I'm willing to give this list the benefit of the doubt. I think a combined discussion on the issue of podcasts is in order, especially after the Wehatetech fiasco. Haikupoet 04:59, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete If there is even confusion about the potential notability of something, it's not notable. Being a big fish in a small pond is no excuse. Dbchip 08:04, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

What? If podcasting is notable (clearly, given the size of the article) then the "small pond" is notable, therefore being a "big fish" in it is more than adequate justification for an article. I think wisewaif has given sufficient evidence that 75 Minutes is among the top English-language podcasts, as far as it can be determined. --Bk0 (Talk) 12:23, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep best podcast/radio program available--Schwab002 09:54, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - As noted by wisewaif the show is widely listened to. --Metrodus 14:40, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep "If there is even confusion about the potential notability of something, it's not notable." that makes no sense, a complete logical fallacy. how many people outside the u.s. have heard of Harper Lee? she wrote one novel in her entire career, and released it at the perfect time. point being, many (who never read the book in high school) would question the potential notability. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dreamer.redeemer (talk • contribs) .
• Keep Definitely notable. Determining the notability of podcasts is hard though, even harder than notability for musical artists. Gaining nationwide (or rather: global) notability isn't really an important thing for a podcast that focusses on music that is more or less underground. I see 75 Minutes as more than just a radioshow: it has a sense of community that reaches out to underground musical scenes in all parts of the world. The show is notable not so much for the wide variety of listeners, but mainly for the wide scope of scenes and genres it covers. Rather than marking this for deletion, an overall discussion (as suggested above) on the notability of podcasts is in order. To make a comparison with musical notability again: my stance would be that articles are okay as long as they are objective. Ie: "This band consists of four members" is okay. "This band is awesome!!1lol" is not. PoofBird 18:29, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Seems like a reasonable explanation of what the site in question is all about; "notoriety" is awfully subjective, don't you think? Maniaclives 14:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete, nn podcruft with what looks like an invasion of sock puppets voting keep. incog 01:21, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete, This site is supposed to have decent information, no jokes. --blackman 02:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Alexa ranking of 1,316,523 - just another podcast taking up space on the wikipedia. non-notable advertisement. -- Hosterweis 02:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Alexa?! You're kidding, right? --Bk0 (Talk) 02:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Alexa is used as a metric for popularity in nearly every AfD. There's no need to stop using it now just because you disagree with it. --dj28 02:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Non-notable. Further, some of the accounts voting to keep look suspiciously like sockpuppets.