Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Instance

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. -Doc^g 01:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Instance[edit]

Non-notable podcast. Google search turned up only promotion, no unbiased sources. Seems to be a self promotion article. Ocatecir 23:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Related article for consideration Scott Johnson (artist) who hosts the podcast. Trebor 00:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find any independent sources, just blogs and links to Wikipedia, therefore not-notable. Trebor 00:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no attempt to assert notability outside of the realm of some WoW fans. No reliable sources cited and an altogether crufty/spammy feel. Leebo⁸⁶ 04:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete I am working right now to buff out this article and have noted so in the article. I am gathering information on notability and relevance to the MMORPG community. The podcast is well listened to and has an impact on the users of the game. Let me have some more time to build it. Thanks Aselman 15:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless if the article is a work in progress there still is a lack of articles from 3rd party independent sources that lend credibility to the notability of the subject. The subject might be listened to, but it lacks the notability for an encyclopedia article about it. 16:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's what I'm working on right now. I'm not associated with the podcast and will do my best to support the article. There hasn't been any discussion on the show on the main page at all before it was marked for deletion. The original authors where never even given a chance to remedy the article before this deletion was posted. However, if I can't find anything notable about it, I will join the chorus asking for its removal. Aselman 03:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I add the following references and arguments from the originating articles discussion page, where this should have been brought up in the first place. I preface this by stating that an immediate call for deletion without so much as a single argument on the article's discussion page violates community spirit if not policy. My references for the page follow: This podcast was originally broadcast through iTunes distribution as a podcast on January 1, 2005 and has produced 47 episodes that have covered the entire year. Pursuant to the notability rules: "Web-specific content[3] is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria...3. The content is distributed via a medium which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster." You have been arguing here just the first of three criteria, when any of the 3 is an argument for notability. It is difficult if not impossible to argue that distributions via iTunes for a year is trival. On the podcast homepage, over 394 people have commented on the podcast with an average rating of 4.5 (of 5) stars. According to the site comments are being logged as late as January 8th. Also notable that if you run a search for World of Warcraft in iTunes 30 podcasts are returned. This show has 390+ user comments. The next nearest cast has 140 or so. Its also important to note that the podcast has two sponsors, "TypeFrag" - a Ventrillo server company and perhaps more importantly Upper Deck Company sponsors the show with advertising and prizes surrounding its World of Warcraft Trading Card Game. I would argue that companies that spend advertising money on a podcast, clearly makes the show as notable as ANY television show that accepts advertising. Finally, outside links to the podcast. Since podcasts are downloadable media, the reside on a single server and are advertised at multiple directories around the Internet. This is how subscribers find the show. Podcast Alley contains a listing for the show at here. The Yahoo Podcast Directory contains a listing here. Podcast Pickle also contains a listing here. The podcast is active and clearly has a following. Moreover, it meets the requirements for notability. WP:WEB also notes that sites that are new should be given a chance to grow. I believe that is the case here as well. Aselman 04:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of what you've said isn't an argument for keeping. It's easy to argue that distributions of podcasts on iTunes is trivial. They host literally thousands of podcasts, not all of which can be considered notable. Popularity is not one of the criteria for deletion (or keeping), so that's irrelevant. The problem is that it's received no independent coverage. Trebor 10:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Trebor, you keep arguing about independent coverage of the podcast but you are missing the fact that that is just one of three possible tests for notability. You may feel you can dismiss my argument under the 3rd test, but it meets the criteria laid out laid out under WP:WEB, that a program distributed by a third party makes it relevant. Independent citations of the podcast are not required if one of the other two tests there are met. World of Warcraft has over 7 million subscribers, this podcast brings news and information to that community. It is this podcast's service of that community that makes it notable. Podcasts should be tested like radio programs and there are any number of programs that have a far more limited audience and far less significance. Yet there they are in a their own article in Wikipedia. The US Radio Program Listing is here. All I ask is that you actually read the rules for notability completely and not stop with the first one. Aselman 13:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There has been outside press of the podcast. Virginworlds.com, a popular site that tracks MMORPGs, [reviewed the Instance] and noted that:

"This professionally produced 25 minute hot-topic podcast is hosted by two very capable gentlemen. Due to the short format, topics are not explored in depth, but if you do not have the time or patience for long podcasts, this is the one you should listen to. Efficiency and professionalism describe The Instance very well. Be sure to subscribe to this one if you�re a WoW player." Aselman 15:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm arguing that simply being one of the thousands of podcasts on iTunes is a trivial distribution. What makes you think otherwise? Trebor 20:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If what you are saying is true than this article should not exist either[1], a list of minor bounty hunters featured in Star Wars. I'm pretty sure that many of the characters in that list or on this much bigger one[2] don't have a big amount of "independent sources" writing 5 page papers on them, as you feel an article requires. If this shouldn't exist, why should articles on characters that have mostly been in maybe a page of a comic book have any mention at all? "Because they are a part of Star Wars and that has a large fanbase." Well WoW, being very similar to Star Wars, could replace the words "Star Wars" in that last sentence! It has over 7 million players. And if something like this[3] is allowed on Wikipedia than a minor podcast that is considered to be among the best and most popular of its kind^{[citation needed]} should too. Sfrostee 10 January 2007

Please assume good faith. I never said, or even implied, it needed a 5 page paper. At present, you seem to be ignoring my argument and instead resorting to WP:ILIKEIT ones. The Star Wars analogue has little relevance - writing about fictional characters comes under WP:FICT, not WP:WEB, so it's not comparable. Again, how does this qualify under WP:WEB given the lack of external coverage and the fact that being one of thousands of podcasts on iTunes is a trivial distribution? Trebor 07:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete I did not create the article for promotional reasons and I have no other connection to The Instance other than the article (in fact I have quit playing WoW altogether); I believe that it has enough relevance to exist, regardless of "third - party sources." I did not include the Show Sponsors section when I originally created the article. That section has been removed to prevent it from appearing to be a promotion. However, I would not call it a "promotion" of the podcast because it costs nothing to subscribe to it. And aren't all articles a promotion of their topics? While Leebo says that the article "only has relevance to some WoW fans," he/she neglects that that is exactly the point of the podcast, to be relevant to WoW fans! And by some, he/she means thousands! The Instance is among the most listened to WoW podcasts (as evidenced by it being one of the few WoWcasts to have sponsors) and has one of the highest amounts in customer reviews on Itunes with over 350. It has arguably the largest fan base of contributors and show participants, whether through posts on forums, emails, and phone calls of any podcast. What is meant by those who say that they can't find any unbiased sources about the topic of the article. Why would this article require unbiased sources? There is no debate about the podcast or the topics it covers and the article has by all means a neutral POV. If you do a Google search of "most popular warcraft podcasts, "here you will find the truth about whether or not this article should by AfD. Also see this [4]. Sfrostee P.S. please do not flood this AfD page with links that answer the questions I propose and just listen to the facts I present about the article's relevance. 9 January 2007

Please see WP:Notability for the criteria for notability. While a podcast might be listened to in to World of Warcraft community, whether or not that is notable enough to deserve its own article is a separate issue. Being listed on directories does not establish notability, as evidenced in the "Primary notability criterion": "Non-triviality" is an evaluation of the depth of content contained in the published work, exclusive of mere directory entry information, and of how directly it addresses the subject. There are a lack of published works discussing this podcast. So far all the evidence of its notability have been its listing in directories of podcasts and the amount of comments left for it on those directories. Once again, please review WP:Notability. Ocatecir 10:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is not the only possible test for notability. Please see my comments above about Web Based content. A program is notable also based on its distribution method. Aselman 13:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No it is not. Please read WP:Notability and WP:ILIKEIT, especially "This number is big." Also see: Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(web)#Podcasts You are confused about what being distributed by a third party means. That does not mean being listed in a directory such as yahoo. Yahoo distributes plenty of non notable podcasts. Yours is among them. Ocatecir

None of what you've said is an argument for keeping. Popularity does not equal notability. You asked "Why would this article require unbiased sources?". I would hope that is self-apparent: without unbiased sources, there is no way to be sure of writing a reliable NPOV article. Many of your arguments are WP:ILIKEIT ones. Trebor 10:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look everybody should just listen to what Aselman is saying and not me because he is making better points and I am only seeming to make you all dig your trenches deeper on this issue for which I apologize. Sfrostee
Delete no reliable or verifiable sources offered. I'm not totally convinced that being on iTunes is notable or that having more comments than other podcasts makes it notable. Metros232 03:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Poor sourcing/references. I particularly suggest that we keep Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(web)#Podcasts in mind, particularly comments by Nifboy. WMMartin 20:14, 12 January 2007 (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.