Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Panda Toes

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. MBisanz ^talk 08:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Panda Toes

Reads like an advertisement, questionable notability. R3ap3R.inc (talk) 13:40, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - for reasons above. Plus (and this was enough for me) their second link to here purports that they are one of the top 5 in the blogosphere, yet the article linked has them as the 6th blog listed, and it doesn't claim to be about the top sites - just about some that are changing the scene. JCutter (talk) 14:33, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 16:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reviewing the references in the article; several do not mention this podcast directly, and others only mention it in passing. There does not seem to be any substantive content out there in any reliable sources which would seem to pass WP:N. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable, given the lack of discussion in reliable sources about this blog. Drmies (talk) 17:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: insufficient independent 3rd party coverage, non-notable. JamesBurns (talk) 05:19, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Some of the sources are off topic, but we've got "Behind the Blog" in BPM which is enough to write a wikipedia article with [1]. We've got the New York Magazine using this blog as a regular source [2] and a fair number of passing mentions in RS as well as a large number of blogs that seem to regard this one as pretty important (40K Ghits, wikipedia page is #6 or so on the list, very low for a blog). Hobit (talk) 16:22, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An hour of playing around with Google shows that as high as 80% off all those Google results are commentary/spam left on other sites, not articles... and, a solid 10% isn't referring this group, but another entity or actual panda bears (espcially deep in the results... mostly Panda stories, not Panda Toes). R3ap3R.inc (talk) 14:03, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More Info The references listed are decieving at best. The first reference has NOTHING to do with Panda Toes, the second reference is a jpg image (not actually a BPM link) and (if you look on BPM) Panda was one of many blogs mentioned in a side article / blog on BPM (not a feature story, or an actual article about Panda), the third reference is self-source (pandatoes.blogspot), and it is topped off with Myspace and another reference that doesn't even mention Panda at all. The only third-party reputable source mentions Panda in passing as one of a number of blogs providing free "low quality mp3s". Also, it would appear that the business model is based around remixing other people's work, not creating original work... if this is notable, I know five million YouTube users who need a wiki page. R3ap3R.inc (talk) 13:58, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First of all it's traditional for the nom to not vote in the AfD as their opinion is already known. The fact that the BPM link is a scan isn't an issue as far as I know. Do you suspect that it is a fake? Yes it's part of an article, but that part is solely on the topic and is detailed enough to build a short article around. Finally, that the New York Post considers it reliable enough to use as a credited source does say something about its standing. It that enough to keep? I think so, but I tend toward inclusionism. I do think that it's obviously more notable than five million youtube users. I think it's a very notable blog in it's genre. Hobit (talk) 19:27, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is a fake, just that the link should be right to BPM and not someone's blog. As for the reference to another article with YouTube, the references also now include The Herald, The Times Online, Telegraph, news.com/CNET, Current, DailyMail, People, and Mirror. R3ap3R.inc (talk) 19:40, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but I didn't find the original on-line, so linking to a scan is the next best thing unless there are doubts about it being faked. I do think your Youtube analogy is flawed. This blog is apparently regarded as a reliable enough source that a significant paper (not a good one mind you) uses it as a source. I don't think there are 5 million youtubers for whom that is true. Probably not 10. Finally, I'd suggest that you strike your !vote so you don't appear to be "voting" twice. Hobit (talk) 19:44, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are really stuck on the YouTube thing eh? The subject in question is notable with or without YouTube, perhaps you should take a look at the latest revision. R3ap3R.inc (talk) 19:49, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you've lost me. You mentioned "I know five million YouTube users..." and I was responding to that. I'm unclear what article you are discussing with the Herald etc. I think you turned right when I turned left :-) Hobit (talk) 22:08, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Facepalm.... I though you were referring to Susan Boyle. R3ap3R.inc (talk) 22:11, 12 April 2009 (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.