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 all - fails WP:WEB and WP:CORP. Subsequent recreation of articles on the company or its podcasts must meet the notability guidelines – multiple, third-party reliable sources – or it can be deleted per WP:CSD#G4. - KrakatoaKatie 00:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simply Syndicated

[edit]

Delete Non-notable. Advert. AlistairMcMillan 02:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unless some reliable, third party sources can be found, and those sources indicate notability. - Rjd0060 02:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Simply unnotable, simply extreme listcruft. Nate · (chatter) 02:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. Looks like an ads. Chris! _ct 03:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Meant to say also, that the only things that link to this article are redirects to itself. AlistairMcMillan 03:23, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have added Richard Smith (podcast host) to this AfD as part of a clear walled garden. Nate · (chatter) 04:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Listcruft. Twenty Years 13:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The Richard Smith page is non-notable, but Simply Syndicated is a featured iTunes provider and Movies Youu Should see is a particularly popular podcast. The page requires a re-dress in terms of tone, but it is far from non-notable or un-salvagable. I suggest we allow for time for corrections to be made before any attempts at deleting the Simply Syndicated page are made.Syferus 00:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please explain what you mean by "featured iTunes provider"? Also how you know "Movies You Should See" is a "particularly popular podcast". I just scanned through the top 100 podcasts on iTunes and I don't see any by Simply Syndicated. Do you have another source? AlistairMcMillan 01:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewArtist?id=264525023 I believe Apple are quite a reputable third party. http://www.radiotimes.com/content/features/guides/podcasts/0037/ The Radio Times is also a well known media guide. In other words - non-notability does not apply. Syferus 02:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, both of those mentions are just as notable as a listing in the Yellow Pages. We don't doubt these podcasts exist, but they're not at the level of a GeekBrief.TV or This Week in Tech by any means. Nate · (chatter) 03:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.radiotimes.com/content/features/guides/podcasts/0037 is a hand-picked recommendation from the UK's best known media guide. To say that is akin to a yellow pages entry is folly. If this wa sto be the case, a large amount of simliarly accepted sources would have to be disregarded. You cannot pick and choose where you apply notability regulations. Being a 'Feature diTunes provider' means a podcast has reached such a level that Apple itself recommends the podcast. Again, not something akin to a yellow pages entry. Please adhere to Wikpedia's rules - the subject is notable - the article needs extensive work, but the subject is valid. Syferus 12:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It opens iTunes like every other podcast link specific to iTunes. That's not a 'featured iTunes provider', and anyone if they have enough money can pay Apple for their own portal page. Also I am adhering to the rules quite fine. I need to see more than recommedations that sound less like pitches. I'm also troubled by your jumping right into an AfD debate suddenly after a 10-month break from editing. Nate · (chatter) 23:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Being a 'Featured iTunes provider' has nothing to do with money - it's a seal of quaility Apple gives to podcasts. Again, a Radio Times recommendation is more than valid and major a source to confirm this is not non-notable. My activity on Wikipedia is totally irrelevant to my validity in contesting this AfD. As I have stated, the Simply Syndicated plage needs extensive work but it is impossible to say it is non-notable. That being the case, the course of action to take is to revise the article rather than delete it out-right. If you continue to try and dismiss valid sources this will have to be took out of our hands and into the moderation of an admin. Do you really think they will support deleting an article about a vendor recommended by Applem The Radio Times and others on the grounds of non-notability? I will offer a few more valid sources before I take that action, though. http://arts.guardian.co.uk/filmandmusic/story/0,,2154540,00.html - a recommendation of Albums You Should Hear by the highly-respected Guardian newspaper.

http://quaedam.wordpress.com/2007/11/29/10-minute-left-field-cinema-podcast-is-great-compliment-to-long-running-movies-you-should-see/ - an example of recognition of Simple Syndicated by the so-called 'blogosphere'. While not as major as The Radio Times, blogs and user-input sites (such as Kotaku) have become a valid source for articles in Wikipedia. I've proved within reason that 'Simply Syndicated' is not non-notable. You can either choose to accept that and improve the article as you see fit or we can take the course of action outlined above.Syferus 14:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As Syferus said, being a iTunes featured providers is nothing to do with money. Do you not think that many more podcast providers would paying iTunes for this position if that was all that was required? Additionally, why are you so persistent on the Simply Syndicated Podcasts, when there are many podcasts with pages, that either don't cite references or don't given any reasoning for notability. Simple search at random through this Category:Audio podcasts.--Cohnee (talk) 21:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm only somewhat familiar with what bumps a podcast to a 'featured provider' and I'm not sure that money is involved. If that statement was wrong I'm sorry for that. However the sources are still not there. Blogs, unless they have major sway usually aren't reliable sources or establish the notability, and that blog link does not I'm afraid. As for your argument using the category under WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, those might be in the category but it doesn't mean they may not be up for AfD themselves in the future. We look at each article brought up here on a case by case basis, and this does not meet the WP:N standard as I see it. Nate · (chatter) 01:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have added Simply Syndicated Podcast Episode Guide. Bad enough we host episode guides for every television series ever produced, we don't need to start indexing podcasts. AlistairMcMillan 01:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Which was created last night after I added the Richard Smith article to AfD. Unbelievable. Nate · (chatter) 02:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, but perhaps rather than just deciding to delete the page you could perhaps suggest changes that should be made. I personally have put alot of time into building the page, along with many others. Like the whole of wikipedia , this page is a work in progress. --Cohnee 13:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- All your edits have involved this topic, and the other pages are just redirects. Nate · (chatter) 02:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - So? This has been the only subject which I have felt the need the to edit. Are only people who only edit highly notable subjects worthy? And why is it bad that episode guides exist for Televison programs? Surely this is an encyclopaedia, a resource of information. Or is it only information that you deem worthy?
  - Movies You Should See is a featured podcast on TV & Film section of the iTunes (UK) Store, as is GeekBrief.TV or This Week in Tech in the Technology Section. So how is one at a higher level than another?--Cohnee 12:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Again, it's not a matter of whether its worthy, it's how notable it is. The links presented have not established how notable the programs are, and instead of immediately cutting the ep guide lists, you put them in a new article, which was discouraged as listcruft. Nate ·(chatter) 23:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but I have to agree with Nate. Apple list thousands of podcasts in their directory, this doesn't prove notability. The fact that they are listed as a "featured" podcast if you drill down to the specific sub-category of the directory also does not prove notability. If they appeared in the list of Top 100 podcasts that might mean something, but they don't.

The Radio Times listing might mean something if it wasn't a weekly list of four "good" podcasts. There are about forty "Good Podcast Guides", with four podcasts listed in each. If the Radio Times mention means SS podcasts are notable, does that mean the other 146 podcasts that the Radio Times mentions are notable enough to have their own articles? AlistairMcMillan (talk) 23:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all but Richard Smith (podcast host) As noted above there are mentions of Simply Syndicated in mainstream UK media (Radio Times) as well as having multiple featured podcasts on the iTunes music store (2 out of 15 in the TV and Movie category). Albums you should hear is also mentioned in this article at The Guardian - http://arts.guardian.co.uk/filmandmusic/story/0,,2154540,00.html . The article needs some improvement but is not non-notable and should definitely be given time to improve. Warpfactor 18:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you Warpfactor. While I'm not going to try and push to keep Richard Smith (podcast host) to hard, there are a number of other podcasters who have their own pages with no more notability.--Cohnee 11:11, 4 December 2007 (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.