Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hello Internet

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 merge to CGP Grey. There is pretty good consensus here that a stand-alone article is not called for. Beyond that, opinions are all over the map. There are reasonable arguments given for any of Delete, Redirect, and Merge, and for the later two, both CGP Grey and Brady Haran are suggested as targets. Rhododendrites makes a good argument why Haran is an unsuitable choice. Lacking any clear consensus between the remaining possibilities, WP:PRESERVE would seem to argue for a merge, so that's what we're doing. Exactly how much of the existing material needs to be merged is left to whoever does the merging. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:01, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Internet[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As much as I'd like the article to exist (I love the podcast), it hasn't yet been covered by multiple reliable sources as far as I can tell and is thus not (yet) notable. Sam Walton (talk) 17:56, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The hosts' popularity - millions of youtube subscribers between them - alone make this project sufficiently notable. Additionally, 532 Reviews on iTunes after 14 episodes, 16,000 google results for search term ""hello internet" podcast" (with hello internet in quotes), and it was (at least briefly) the top podcast in itunes (https://static.squarespace.com/static/52d66949e4b0a8cec3bcdd46/t/52fbf2e4e4b04f3c7b4c42a4/1392243432969/?format=1500w). Stevetursi (talk) 18:31, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is not inherited - this article should be able to stand up with information about itself, not its creators. See also WP:GOOGLEHITS - articles are judged on reliable source coverage, not the number of webpages which show up in a google search. Sam Walton (talk) 18:36, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - ..which is why I pointed out the number of google search results, the number of itunes reviews, and the top rating in itunes. Stevetursi (talk) 19:19, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - None of which matters until the podcast is the subject of multiple reliable independent sources. Sam Walton (talk) 19:22, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - How are the editors at apple who determine the top podcasts in their store not considered an independent source? Don't take this the wrong way, but I'm already regretting getting involved in this conversation. This kind of banter makes wikipedia far too tedious for anything but reading. I don't understand how anyone could not look at the podcast and say it's not clearly notable. You have my opinion, my vote, and you can take it for what it's worth. Or not. Stevetursi (talk) 20:10, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Apologies, it wasn't my intention to get into 'banter'. If we didn't have strict guidelines on what qualified as notable the encyclopedia would fill with articles on any old thing that happens to exist. As I said above I'd love for HI to have an article but I couldn't find any sources on which to base this article. As such the only reliable information we can write is "The podcast was top rated on iTunes"; hardly a compelling and informative article. But yes, as you say, AfDs are judged on the merits of their participant's arguments, so we'll see. Sam Walton (talk) 20:28, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stevetursi, two points: (1) You may be using the term "notable" in the dictionary sense, while in this context we're analyzing it as Wikipedia notability guidelines use the term, involving specific criteria. Many topics are notable in the normal colloquial sense, but do not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria (what we might call "not notable" as shorthand). (2) A primary reason for requiring independent reliable sources with significant coverage about a topic is so there are objective sources on which to base a substantive article. There just don't seem to be any such sources for this topic. Agyle (talk) 08:06, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. A.Minkowiski^{_Lets t@lk} 18:07, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. A.Minkowiski^{_Lets t@lk} 18:07, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Would you suggest something like including it as a subsection of the CGP Grey or Brady Haran page? If so, which one? I also see that someone has created a list of episodes page, should that stay? Kieran Hunt (talk) 20:29, 17 June 2014 (UTC+2)
- I think that would be a good solution, yes. Yeah I noticed that; I'm not 100% sure of the rules on lists but I assume it will probably be kept/deleted based on the outcome of this discussion. Sam Walton (talk) 18:37, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into CGP Grey As a fan of CPG Grey and an avid listener of Hello Internet, even biased little me can acknowledge that the podcast simply isn't notable enough to stand on its own two feet. In my opinion the CGP Grey article should be restructured to be about the man not the youtube channel, which would then allow Hello Internet to become a subsection. Obviously it would be a subsection to Brady's page as well.--Coin945 (talk) 19:19, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without redirect, or redirect to Brady Haran if a mention of Hello Internet! is added to that article. I searched but did not find the subject mentioned at all (even trivially) in any independent reliable sources. Do not really see anything factually verifiable worth merging from the current version of the article. The podcast website's About page offers a basic description of the website, and while not an independent source, perhaps it could be cited for a one-sentence mention of the podcast in Haran's article, thereby warranting the redirect. A difficult choice arises in that it seems equally valid to redirect it instead to CGP Grey, if it mentions the podcast as well, but if the CGP Grey article is ostensibly about a YouTube channel rather than its host, there doesn't seem to be any reason to mention Hello Internet! in the CGP Grey article. A disambiguation page would not apply even if the podcast is mentioned on both pages, since we don't refer to Hello Internet! as "Brady Haran" or "CGP Grey".Agyle (talk) 08:06, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:53, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability is not separate from the podcast's creator. Shii (tock) 14:49, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with both CGP Grey and Brady Haran under a new section titled "Hello Internet". Hotelmason241 (talk) 10:40, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to CGP Grey as whatever page it redirects to has to talk about this subject (and Haran's article doesn't). --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 23:15, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It reached "#1 iTunes podcast in United Kingdom, United States, Germany, Canada, and Australia.[2]" So it is a notable show. Shows can be notable separate from the people involved in them. Dream Focus 07:25, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- See the discussion above where I explain that this isn't a reason to keep the article. Sam Walton (talk) 08:16, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - There are other ways to determine notability, such as a notable accomplishment. Dream Focus 09:55, 4 July 2014 (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.