Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soccergirl

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 was delete - socking is futile.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Soccergirl[edit]

Soccergirl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

An article on a podcast. I believe this easily fails notability requirements (WP:WEB). P.B. Pilhet / Talk 16:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No indication of notability has been given. --SunStar Net 16:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speediest of deletes per nom --SandyDancer 16:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Dawn and Drew Show has an acceptable entry, as does Adam Curry. Unlike those articles, this one does not attempt to advertise or to promote any content. It is a factual article about an entertainment personality. As such it can not be fairly deleted. Notability: Soccergirl has been written about by Reuters and in The New York Times. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Metaanni (talk • contribs) 17:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Two passing mentions in newspaper articles does not an "entertainment personality" make. —Cryptic 17:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete Whether or not you agree with that definition of "entertainment personality" you can not deny that the show is a verifiable entity that people are interested in watching and listening to. That alone that warrants inclusion on Wikipedia. The facts are there and that should be enough for any impartial editor to approve the entry. Soccergirl has upwards of 50,000 subscribers (see [1] What makes Dawn and Drew acceptable and not Soccergirl? Liono007 17:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Should have been on the speedy list. scope_creep 17:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- The only thing she does is make podcasts in the nude, now if she had more notability maybe I can see keeping it but she isn't that notable. Another note, just because it's in Reuters or in The New York Times doesn't mean it belongs in Wikipedia, for instance, if there was a man who ate 6 cans of beans in an hour and won a contest, and it was in The NYT, it would not be notable enough to be on Wikipedia. Darthgriz98 17:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete 713 unique google hits out of 100,000 total. Still awaiting verification of notability by way of independent reviews.] Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 17:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete The guidelines state the following: "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself."

    Soccergirl was referenced extensively in: Podcasting for Dummies [2] Soccergirl was included on a panel at Sundance, 2005, and was written up in the Sundance Review Guide (I don't have a link for this, but the following Yahoo interview proves that she played an important role in the festival [3]. Soccergirl was also the first podcaster to adapt her show to the stage (in New York City, June 2006) and was reviewed by the print publication, New York Theater (see the review at their website: [4] Liono007 17:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do not delete Darthgriz said: "The only thing she does is make podcasts in the nude, now if she had more notability maybe I can see keeping it"

    Notability definition: A notable, or remarkable, person or thing; a person of note. Soccergirl has 165 shows, updated twice or three times a week since March of 2005. She has inspired many other podcasters and is considered among podcasting's pioneers. She has been nominated for a podcast award in the Mature category [5] for two years in a row (other than Dawn and Drew, the only one who was) Her name is known by anyone notable in the field. 165 episodes and worldwide recognition is a little more important than eating 6 cans of beans. Laffertyme 18:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • We don't base decisions on what you personally consider to be important. The notability criteria to satisfy are WP:WEB. Uncle G 19:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Creating three accounts simply to create and then vote to keep an article doesn't generally win people over to your cause:
    1. Metaani's contribs
    2. Liono007's contribs
    3. Laffertyme's contribs
  • It is called sockpuppetry on Wikipedia - it gets you banned from editing. --SandyDancer 18:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we are all just fans of Soccergirl. I am a newly registered user on her messageboard and saw this message [6]. She recently mentioned Wikipedia on a show. I am only editing under Laffertyme and suspect the others are simply active on here because of her requests. Laffertyme 18:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Besides, the fact that these three users have only posted about Soccergirl doesn't say anything about the facts we've posted. Laffertyme 18:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete I do not see any notability in her podcast. Podcasting is notable because it gives otherwise not notable people the ability to reach a group of similarly interested people. It's radio/TV for the not notable. I love podcasting for this reason.--Nick Y. 20:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dont Delete!!!! Soccergirl incoporated gives me something to look forward to every week, listening to her podcast had changed my life. I feel more relaxed and enjoy life so much more. I chat under the user "thenintendofreak" soccergirl is a well known podcaster among the podcasting community, with her awsome beats and stories that are just so creative in nature. Soccergirl is right up there with the greats of podcasting along with dawn and drew, geekbrief with cali lewis, not too many people can say they get paid to podcast. Yeah she shows her boobs sometimes but theres much more too soccergirl incorporated then just listeners and podcasters its friendship too, she is the worlds first bathcaster. for one she has inspired me to do my own podcast. Soccergirl doesnt judge and deserves her spot in history, listen for you self, she always keeps it interesting. I wish i could be ryan p(soccergirls boyfriend) you wont find a kinder podcaster not even dawn and drew can top that.Richw53149 00:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We are talking about deleting the encylopedia article, not the podcast. You will still be able to enjoy it after the article is gone. There are plenty of wonderful things in life that don't have encyclopedia articles. Regardless of the merits of the person as a person, they do not make the subject encyclopedic. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 03:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No indication given of encyclopedic notability Bwithh 03:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. There are hints of notability here and there, but not quite enough to rise to the level of WP:BIO in my opinion. Who knows, maybe we'll be having this discussion a month from now (Lonelygirl15, anyone?). Then again, maybe not. RFerreira 06:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: I'm sorry but the article needs a darn good tidy up, but with the references in there to large scale news stories from very reputable sources, plus the fact that it's in the top 40 of iTunes podcasts I believe makes this very notable indeed. I've never heard of her before, but looking around it does seem notable. Ben W Bell talk 08:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment about references in press We need to look critically at this. The mentions of Soccergirl are completely incidental to the articles they appear in - for heaven's sake, if that kind of "press coverage" qualifies one as notable for wikipedia, I will create an article for myself and several of my friends - none of us are notable, but we've all had passing references made to us and quotes attributed to us in national and even international press... --SandyDancer 10:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep & Wikify Normally I would say delete on something like this, but after checking the sources I have to say it meets notability and verifiability criteria, though barely. To Sandydance: Normally I'd agree with you, but the press coverage in this case comes from major sources, the NYT and Reuters are not small and tend to cover only more mainstream, notable things. Furthermore, the sources carry the common theme of being a sort of introduction to the concept of podcasting to the general public which is precisely the type of article in which there'd be name drops of the most notable, paradigm-type examples of the subject matter. The fact she's appeared in numerous articles of this type is further in her favor. I must admit, however, that the sockpuppets weren't a help. --The Way 10:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot agree with The Way's rationale. Mainstream press coverage can be used to gauge notability, if the coverage is specifically about the topic at issue. This, by the way, is not necessarily grounds for notability, despite the apparently irresistible view here that if it finds its way into the NYT, it gets an article on WP (see Hal the Central Park Coyote, a peculiar memento mori that exists ONLY thanks to this conflation between press coverage and notability). We need to be more intellectually energetic, critical and engaged in determining whether a topic is notable enough for inclusion, rather than arrogate that responsibility to the chance decision made by a deadline-stressed reporter looking to use one or another example to illustrate a point. I know that press coverage is crawling over our guidelines for inclusion, but we need to apply common sense in using that as a criterion. As in this case, press mention does not on its own confer notability. Delete. Eusebeus 11:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly they are just passing mentions. The Times might write an article about investment bankers in London, and include a quote from a named banker. That wouldn't justify a Wikipedia article about him. --SandyDancer 12:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment--staying with delete I do not see the articles themselves as nontrivial. A mere mention by reuters or NYTimes is not sufficient to meet "non-trivial." Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 15:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Normally I'd agree with all of you, however I feel that the fact that multiple sources have all chosen to use this particular blog as an example implies notability. If it was just the NYT then I'd say delete. Yet, it seems like an awfully big coincidence that many sources choose this particular blog, when theres thousands upon thousands of blogs out there. Indeed, I doubt its coincidence and I feel its more likely that this is seen as a paradigm example in the media's coverage of blogs. However, if the consensus is to delete then that is fine; I do recognize that the notability here isn't fully clear. --The Way 20:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Only a few podcasts are notable enough for their own articles, and this one isn't among them. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails notability. Anomo 16:04, 19 November 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/Soccergirl&oldid=1138775799"