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. Reliable sources from print or web would be necessary; none have been presented Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 19:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peckhammer.blip.tv[edit]

Peckhammer.blip.tv (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Non-notable web content. Fails WP:N and WP:WEB. Trusilver 16:39, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 00:14, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable. All the alleged "references" have either nothing to do with the channel, or are trivial mentions at best. One's even gives me a 404 error... SchuminWeb (Talk) 22:14, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep "Notable" is too ambiguous. What's "notable" for me and others obviously isn't "notable" in your estimation. What is Wikipedia's book definition of "notable"? This website has documented, amongst other things, the achievements of motorcycles and attaining new world land speed records. I think it's extremely notable. Moreover, it seems as though a few people are interested in working on the article to improve it's qualityMrmcdonnell (talk) 00:53, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia has stated its notability policy on many different pages. WP:N is the main policy, and WP:WEB also applies in this case. This article fails both guidelines. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:44, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Maybe I'm nuts but WP:WEB says

“

Internet guides. Wikipedia articles should not exist only to describe the nature, appearance or services a website offers, but should describe the site in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance, which can be significantly more up-to-date than most reference sources since we can incorporate new developments and facts as they are made known.

”

Covering newly established motorcycle land speed records (acheievement? historical significance?) qualifies it as notable - not failing the notability critera. Mrmcdonnell (talk) 02:20, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I could write a blog tomorrow "covering newly established motorcycle land speed records". That wouldn't make the blog notable, it would just make the records notable. The subject doesn't gain de facto notability just because it happens to list something on its that is notable. Trusilver 08:40, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I recind my "Keep" request. I feel as though once your minds are made up, there's really no other option for an article that is nominated. I still sincerely believe that "notability" is too ambiguous.Mrmcdonnell (talk) 12:07, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is not a blog of records. It is a show produced by a notable new media figure that is an an going documentary project about notable people and their motorcycle-related accomplishments. This is mtorcycle history being made, and recorded for release as an Internet-only video podcast. This project and podcast has an international audience and should not be minimized by calling it a blog of speed records. There are more comments in the discussion section of this page. Souris40 (talk) 14:19, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The following link is an example of a page that appears to notable for similar criteria as www.wikipedia.org/All-for-nots

It is a web tv documetary series produced by a notable person. Souris40 (talk) 14:19, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Where is link? And also, as seen on the talkpage, Shadowlynk states: "Anyway, I think we have a legitimate assertion of notability on the talk page here, so I'll bump it down from speedy to general cleanup tags" on 05:34, 27 September 2008 (UTC). What happened to this?! Mrmcdonnell (talk) 14:57, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I was just thinking. Didn't Martin Bashir become "notable" for his interviews with famous people. Why can't/doesn't this article follow suit? Mrmcdonnell (talk) 17:51, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Because the possibility of gaining notability through dealings with other notable people is possibly, but it isn't automatically assumed. I can't go out and talk to Michael Jackson tomorrow and gain notability through that conversation. There still is the requirements of multiple, non-trivial sources and the restrictions placed in WP:N, WP:BIO and such. Also, just because there are other similar articles equally unnotable, as Souris40 noted above, that doesn't mean an article that fails to comply with policy should stay. (see: WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS)Trusilver 19:33, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment My observation here is that the wiki admins can't seem to agree; that new media can't be validated unless old media writes about it; and that the wiki admins do not allow time for old media validation (if that is truly the case). Also, there are no questions here about the host/producers notability. The question appears to be whether the project/show, which is often a primary source of motorcycle history in the making -- not a list of facts such as names and records recorded on the web -- is notable. Lastly, it appears that the work of notable people is not notable, even if it is an extension of the work that makes them notable (podcasting and new media). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Souris40 (talk • contribs) 01:03, 29 November 2008 (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.