Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Godcasting (2nd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 of the debate was keep. Ichiro 00:27, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Godcasting[edit]

Relisting per WP:DRV discussion. I may vote later, depending on justifications for keeping/deleting this given. —Locke Cole • t • c 07:43, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is extremely premature considering this article was only just recreated some hours ago. Please give sufficient time for this article to be expanded on. CentrOS 09:16, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nah. Personally I think your evidence is strong enough that at best the article will be kept and expanded, and at worst it'll be merged and redirected into Podcast. But having the AFD discussion now will get that out of the way before you spend any significant amount of time expanding it (afterall, it'd suck if you spent a week or two expanding it, only to have it deleted again). BTW, my general feeling is that it should probably be merged into Podcast with Godcast redirecting there. (i.e. - give Godcast it's own section in Podcast for now). —Locke Cole • t • c 13:09, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Besides, AfD discussions run for five days, which should give you (or someone else here) plenty of time to improve the article. howcheng {chat} 07:32, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - or Speedy Delete. Still a neologism with a bunch of external links. The "content" is obviously copied and pasted from somewhere else. - Femmina 09:48, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes Femmina, it has been copied from my word processor after I wrote it and pasted into Wikipedia. How on earth did you guess? Not all Wikipedia contributers are amateur writers. And gosh, it's a first draft - I feel flattered. CentrOS 10:04, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Not sure why this is here given the massive google hits [1] and mainstream use by CNN etc. -- JJay 09:55, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It has already been shown that this is no longer a neologism. When Business Week, The Guardian, CNN and countless others are using the term in headlines, the term has clearly entered mainstream usage and is not a neologism. Let the article have sufficient time to be expanded so your vote will no longer be ill-informed. CentrOS 09:59, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - Religious beliefs or lack thereof must not be used to determine the important of an article. Godcasting is a social phenomena and rightly deserves a record in the Wikipedia. CentrOS 09:59, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If the problem is that "Godcasting" is a not yet established neologism, it could be moved to Religious podcasting or Religion and podcasting, and moved back later if the term spreads. The lead can mention "godcasting" as an alternative term. u p p l a n d 11:05, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, used widely enough. - Bobet 13:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, no longer a neologism, though I might change my vote if one more person suggests that it was deleted as part of an anti-Christian conspiracy. --Last Malthusian 13:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep said God unto Jobs, and spread my word along the Pods of Apple Sceptre (Talk) 15:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Deletion review concluded that original deletion should be overturned. If you're just going to go and nominate things for deletion after their review has reached an "overturn" decision, we might aswell do away with the deletion review section. Does someone have a fixation with deleting this or something? - UK «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3» Talk | Contrib's 16:57, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maybe I can't read as good as I used to, so help me here– I see two "undelete and relist" and a lone "relist" (so effectively three people asking that it be relisted on AFD). One was an "overturn/undelete", and two were "keep deleted". And as I said above, this gives CentrOS a chance to see if it'll even be kept before he spends time trying to improve it. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:11, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Term is being used more and more and the subject is akin to televangelism. -- Shinmawa 18:43, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Term is growing. Dustimagic 19:37, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete and replace with {{deletedpage}} to prevent further recreation of the page, as nn neologism (eight hits on Google News, http://godcast.org has an Alexa ranking of 444,124). -- Hosterweis 19:58, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • http://godsipod.com has an Alexa ranking of 817,981, just for the record. Hosterweis 20:00, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I looked into this. Firstly alexa collects info via their browser toolbar. Podcasts are not downloaded or even searched for via a browser but by a podcatcher such as iTunes. An alexa rank is therefore of little use in determining their value in this case. CentrOS 05:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This was recreated as the result of a deletion review, and therefore not a #G4 speedy (as explicitly set out in #G4). --Last Malthusian 20:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • In addition, the G4 speedy criterion can only be applied when the article is essentially the same as the deleted version. User:CentrOS supplied some references that were not available to people in the first discussion. howcheng {chat} 07:32, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • And he's only just got started. CentrOS 09:08, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and give articles time to prove their worth before AfDing them! An Hour!? Mind you, given that some have been AfDd within five minutes of creation I suppose thats positively generous.... Jcuk 20:29, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and protect from recreation. Result of previous debate was to redirect to Podcasting where it has a one-liner. A full article is NOT needed on a niche subject such as this. --Timecop 04:06, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is nothing niche about Godcasting as a swift perusal of the content on the page shows quite clearly. CentrOS 09:08, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The term "godcasting" garners approximately 140-thousand hits on Google, seems to be notable to some. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:09, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, there are sources. I've no prejudice against this being merged with Podcasting or something, but I see no reason to get rid of this information from the encyclopedia. Friday (talk) 05:15, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep now. I was going to say merge to Podcasting, but there are enough outside sources now that indicate that its worthy of its own article. howcheng {chat} 07:32, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete or Move - I don't find Godcasting suited for another article. But it may have potential. --Depakote 15:17, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --kingboyk 17:01, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Femmina has twice now vandalized this article by posting a wholly inappropriate link to an individual podcast called GOD HATES FAGS. I have once again removed this link. It should be noted above that she voted to have this article removed, making this clear it is nothing more than an attempt to stir up controversy. Since I am new here, someone might want to bring me up to speed on how to best deal with such things. CentrOS 18:07, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd recommend reading Wikipedia:Resolving_disputes. You might also find Wikipedia:Three-revert rule of interest, as Femmina will break it if she puts the link back in within 24 hours of the first time. See the article's talk page for more (we should try to keep this page about the deletion). --Last Malthusian 21:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • P.S. For the moment, there's no need to do anymore than try to hash this out on the talk page. Only when it starts being disruptive to the article's content (see edit war) should further steps be taken. --Last Malthusian 21:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Erm, from what I can see, the godhatesfags IS a valid podcast, from a church, have you actually listened to it? I did. If you think you can link to your shit from here, why can't others? --Timecop 06:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or complete rewrite. The first paragraph excluded, this is an extremely bad, painfully fanboyish article which definitely doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. I advise everyone who voted keep to read it again. Tapir 20:58, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Almost all of this user's edits are to blog-related AfDs. Rhobite 03:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It may not be a featured article candidate, but it's well-sourced and shows no overt pro-Christian POV. Definitely a case for improvement rather than deletion. --Last Malthusian 21:51, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • lol christianity what, that's not what I was talking about. Nobody cares how many lycos hits it got in December, that's not something that belongs in an encyclopedia article, and I presume it isn't some kind of all time internet record that is notable by itself. The whole article is basically talking about how popular it is, it has like 2 lines of information apart from that. Which could be merged into another article. The article simply has no substance. Imagine if all articles on wikipedia were 80% about how many search engine hits something has and where it was mentioned in the press. Tapir 22:06, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article has just been created, and as I have asked repeatedly for time to write a good entry. The reason the figures are there and predominant right now is because it was initially questioned wether Godcasting has sufficient interest to warrant a full article. i have clearly shown there is, now let me fill in with more content please. CentrOS 22:24, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The point is that you should prove notability in the talk page or on the VfD, just like people do in other articles that are voted for deletion, not just dump it all in the article itself to hide the lack of useful information. Tapir 22:34, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • User's 29th edit —Locke Cole • t • c 09:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Redirect to podcast. A cutesy little pun that is indistinguishable from other podcasts except for content. I am willing to be convinced otherwise, but it is not obvious to me how this warrants discussion outside of podcasting, which, presumably, could more than adequately discuss the issues raised (if any) by this silly, cutesy neologism. "Religious podcasts are also refered to as Godcasts" should more then do it in the Podcasting article. Eusebeus 22:16, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Rhobite 03:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think it's a solid article, I think it's suitably coherent, and I think it deals with a valid, growing, separate trend in podcasting. I don't see any reason to get rid of it, honestly. --AlbertHerring 07:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Article consists almost entirely of references scraped together in an attempt to show how big, important, and deserving of a Wikipedia article "Godcasting" is. Delete and redirect to podcasting. silsor 21:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with rewrite. Bear in mind as you consider my opinion that I'm the guy who coined the term. It's been in use, however, since the end of October, 2004 (only a few months after "podcasting" was coined) and is now widely accepted by both the media and the general public as the term used to refer to any type of religious podcast. And while it's true that news.google.com currently points to only 10 active references in the media as someone else pointed out (two of which are CNN and UPI), it has been referenced in hundreds of online and print articles over the past 14 months, starting with TIME Magazine in 12/04. So while I agree with those who argue that the entry needs to be rewritten from its current form, I don't buy into the argument that the term remains a neologism. CPatchett 08:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as recreation of previously deleted content. If that doesn't work, delete. Note that the user above mentions that 'I'm the guy who created the term'. Proto t c 10:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy won't work since this was undeleted at WP:DRV. Can you point out where he said what you say he said? =) Diff please? —Locke Cole • t • c 10:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, assuming he's referring to CPatchett, it's the very first sentence after his 'vote'. But that's neither here nor there, as he's made no contribution to the article. (Presumably Proto is making an accusation of original research.) --Malthusian (talk) 10:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Presumably Proto can presume for himself. To clarify: It's a neologism that - at best - should be noted a list of casting portmanteaus on the podcasting article. Proto t c 11:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • For what it's worth, I sort-of agree; as mentioned above, I think this should be merged/redirected into Podcast with it's own section perhaps (depends on what the editors at Podcast support I suppose). Thanks for the clarification. —Locke Cole • t • c 11:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. Per nom. Incognito 17:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. Nuff said Cptchipjew 07:26, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Merge per proto. WhiteNight T | @ | C 09:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to Podcasting. The article doesn't add any really useful information. The mention on the podcasting page should be sufficient. -Rjo 12:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It's notable enough ... unfortunately. Cyde Weys votetalk 16:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, just to show CentrOS that my vote counts just as much as his does. See also my comments on the article's Talk page, which explain that there is no article there. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please it is really notable erasing it does not make sense Yuckfoo 22:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note that every single one of CentrOS's edits have been to Godcasting, its talk pages, its DRV discussion and its AfD discussions. Do I sense an agenda? User:Zoe|(talk) 22:53, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Zoe, I've already said a disproportionate amount on this particular article, but I find this comment close to indefensible. What does it matter what an editor chooses to contribute to? If he'd done some copyediting or edited established articles that would have nothing to do with the worth of this article. Agenda? Do you have any examples of clear POV edits to back that accusation up? --Malthusian (talk) 23:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Gee, I don't know, telling people that their votes to keep the article deleted don't count, then when those voters object, they're told "eat me?" User:Zoe|(talk) 00:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's not evidence of an agenda (apart from trying to keep your own work on Wikipedia if you think it doesn't violate policy, which I would have thought we all have), that's ignorance of process and incivility. At least try to keep this about the article, which is the subject of this discussion, and not about a single editor. --Malthusian (talk) 09:40, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Clearly notable, per Google hits and coverage in major media outlets. -- Vary | Talk 06:00, 12 January 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Godcasting_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1079911277"