Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yahoo! Podcasts

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), Per consensus reached. Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 03:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Service is now defunct. LightSpeed3 (talk) 20:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The reference shows that it exists, and that it was probably notable at some point; the fact that it's "defunct" is immaterial. Notability doesn't usually expire. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as currentness isn't a factor in whether subjects have articles (for example, Wikipedia contains biographical articles on people who are no longer living). Tarinth (talk) 21:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This page is one of the last proofs Yahoo! Podcasts ever existed, as a Wikipedia article, this page will rank high when people look for it. Plus I think, when it launched it was the first of it's kind. —IncidentFlux (talk) 22:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep. Reason given for nomination is not a valid deletion criterion, and no other valid reason has been given. We are not likely to delete Pan American World Airways, or Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway, both of which would qualify as "service now defunct". neither would we consider deleting Studebaker or UNIVAC. Unless a better reason for deletion is forecoming, this should be closed. Grutness...wha? 00:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment They went out of business in a couple of years. They might not have merited an encyclopedia article even while they were in business. Internet companies can create these subsidiaries without much investment, making them unlike railways or manufacturers of automobiles or computers. Would there be an appropriate place to merge the information, such as an article on former Yahoo services or former podcast hosts? Fg2 (talk) 01:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Being defunct does not mean they were not notable. the preservation of information is one of the key functions of an encyclopedia. DGG (talk) 06:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not temporary. Even if something once received some public attention, but isn't notable any longer, we should not have an article about it. User:Dorftrottel 12:41, January 29, 2008

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.