Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wedcast

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 Keep; non-admin closure. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Wedcast

Wedcast (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Non notable. No links. No real references. Nothing here at all. Delete Metal Head (talk) 16:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. I was inspired to write the article by an article in the Boston Globe, which I cited. The article pointed to the fact that several businesses offer the "wedcast" service. Although it is minor, it does exist and can be verified. If nothing else, a merge into webcast may be justified. Btw, thanks to the nominator for telling me about this. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 16:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep or Merge It can be kept with more infomation, but thats unlikely (considering that the only reference is an article). I think it should be merged with its own section. 1yodsyo1 [Talk|User_talk:1yodsyo1] 16:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1yodsyo1 (talk • contribs)

• Comment Just because you read it somewhere does not signify importance. You must provide a link to that. There is no link, thus no sources.Metal Head (talk) 16:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

• There's no "must provide link" rule. Print sources are valid. --Oakshade (talk) 18:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
• Update - Not because it's a "rule", but just as a service to editors, I've added a url to the Boston Globe article. --Oakshade (talk) 01:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - An actual form of webcasting and the in depth Boston Globe and Time articles about it demonstrate its notability. --Oakshade (talk) 18:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete unless more sources are provided. Surely a single article on a cutesy trend does not make said trend encyclopedic? The Globe writes about lots of things, and many articles can be considered local filler -- for example, here is an article on the "Growing number of professionals" moving away from Boston to learn cheese-making. Need we have an article on that? I get 333 google hits for the term "Wedcast". No doubt its day will come, but without multiple references in reliable sources, it's not here yet. bikeable (talk) 00:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

• A source as significant and in depth as the one from the Boston Globe suffices. Besides, the Time article is also from a very reliable source and the piece is in depth. Deleting an article on a notable topic because you think it's "cutesy" is a pure WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument. --Oakshade (talk) 00:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

• The Time source wasn't listed when I made my comment. I was not arguing deletion because it's cutsey, but because a single source is not adequate. Newspapers write plenty of fluff pieces that do not describe encyclopedic subjects; thus my cutesy comment. However, the new addition of a second source pushes me up to weak keep. bikeable (talk) 02:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

• That is a classic case of WP:OSTRICH. Do research on a topic before making a decision to delete an article. The Time reference was found within seconds. And if a reliable source writes about a topic, it is considered notable. Cheese making is an encyclopedic topic, that's why the Boston Globe wrote about people moving to certain areas to learn it. Your opinion as to what is "fluff" is not a deciding factor in keeping or deleting articles.--Oakshade (talk) 03:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

• Oh, please chill. I did some quick research, and missed the Time article, but the small number of google results show that this is extremely close to being a neologism. And you still misunderstand my argument; of course cheese making is notable, but one article in a paper on an alleged local trend does not make that trend notable. I'm sorry you didn't like or understand my argument, but you needn't insult editors whose !votes you disagree with. bikeable (talk) 03:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - there's a couple very strong sources in the article, and it seems like this article could also be further improved in the future. A decent stub to begin with! Tarinth (talk) 12:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

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.