Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PodNova

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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PodNova

non-notable advertisement of a blog/podcast aggregator Timecop 07:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - and think about the childrens - Femmina 07:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Per Femmina <3 Cptchipjew 13:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Advert, vanity. Incognito 07:27, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Hmmm. 843,000 Google hits. However, because all of them are exactly the same, it excludes 842,949 of them from view (see here). --Hosterweis 07:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per Incognito. --Depakote 11:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. delete. delete. delete. delete. delete. delete. delete. delete. DELETE! __earth 12:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think this could go either way. Not sure if it meets WP:WEB but it is known in the podcasting world. Cyde Weys _vote^talk 14:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How well known? I'm not into podcasting myself but if you could convince me, I'd consider overturning my decision. __earth 16:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't. Delete. Tapir

I don't have a good way to answer that. Podcasts are useless without a good aggregator, you see, and so many have sprung up in the podcasting world. This is one of those. Typically podcast writers will work to get their podcast listed on as many different aggregators as they can find. There are some really big ones, like Podcast.net and iTMS, and then the medium-sized ones, like PodNova. I'm just not sure how to vote. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 18:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I couldn't change my vote =(. But you might be interested in User:Timecop/The_war_on_blogs. That's the reason why there're too many delete vote here. Most people that vote here do it without even considering the site notability.__earth 01:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. I do know that several people have this page on watchlist, and generally agree with all the content nominated here. I know you do too, and appreciate your "support". --Timecop 04:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Advert Jmax- 19:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and give him a medal for doing yoeman work on ridding WP of this detritus! Eusebeus 19:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with prejudice. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 22:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It would be pointless to have stubby little articles on every podcsting directory on the internet. Plus, prejudicially, how many times can you fit podcast in an article? Dan 22:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Forallah 02:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Proto t c 10:38, 10 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.