Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Apeman Cometh

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 Apeman Cometh

appears to be non-notable podcaster - CobaltBlueTony 16:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Additional: This article does not meet criteria for web content (Extensive copy and paste of the linked-to page elided. Uncle G 18:28, 22 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]
• Comment. At first glance it appears to be advertising. But more importantly, how did you come to the conclusion this podcast was non-notable. Was it a lack of listeners? Too few episodes, Too new? Your nomination doesn't explain your reasoning. Instead of using "non-notable", please explain your reasoning with objective facts. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:07, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I understand that the phrasing does seem to be advertising, but this was written following several other podcast and internet radio pages that seemingly are not nominated for deletion, so I would like some clarification on this as well. I am open to making changes to the page if suggestions are provided. However, the non-notable part also makes me curious. If it is based on "too few episodes" (currently residing at 27), then I'd like to know what number is no longer "too few". If it's "not enough listeners", I'd like to know where your data was obtained, as it has never been made publicly available. If it's "too new", then please tell me what the timeframe to no longer be considered new is, since I have been podcasting over one year. - MtA
  • "If article X then article Y." is a fallacious argument. The criteria for web content have been linked to above. Please
    cite sources to demonstrate that they are satisfied. Uncle G 20:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • I am not trying to make an argument, I am pointing out that there are articles for other podcasts and internet broadcasts that are not nominated for deletion, despite the fact that they do not meet the notability criteria either, as referenced above by you. If you feel that my article should be deleted, then I am merely making the point that there are several other non-notable articles out there similar in format to mine that are not being nominated, including but not limited to No Holds Barred Radio and The Dawn and Drew Show. Neither of these have cited any sources, neither have clearly demonstrated notability based on the requirements listed, yet they are not being questioned? I'm not making an argument, but rather questioning the fairness and making sure I am not being singled out for some reason.Mike the Apeman 18:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mike, we're not here to prove a point. None of us are. Somebody needs to cite sources if the article is going to assert any notability - and I, for one, have never heard of your show, let alone until recently the show you originally were on. (I only heard about NHB from my wife, who got it once from a Shoutcast feed.) --Dennisthe2 17:55, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I have taken Uncle G's comment into advisement and removed all copy and paste's from referenced links. - MtA

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks,

iablo 16:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete as nn. --Dennisthe2 17:55, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable. Maybe the author of the podcast is, but that doesn't mean everything he produces is. Localzuk^(talk) 20:13, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; lack of reliable sources, advert/promotional content, vanity concerns, no demonstration of notability. --MCB 23:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm not going to keep debating this back and forth. If you guys are going to delete my article, then do it. I may not agree with your reasoning, but this is your sandbox, so you make the rules. I am going to point out that the person who noimated this originally has seemingly disappeared from this discussion, which leads me to the conclusion that this was a targeted effort and the discussion wouldn't even be happening without that person's action.Mike the Apeman 15:22, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.