 | This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2013 January 13. For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review. |
- 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 no consensus. A close call here, and I note that Sandstein (who generally contributes to AFD by closing discussions instead of participating) entered a keep vote where he dissented from what appeared to be consensus at the time. I have reviewed that vote and find that it has sufficient merit to block there from being a consensus. In particular, citing WP:CSB as a deletion argument and "doesn't look notable to me, regardless of sourcing" seems rather irrelevant.
There is quite a bit more merit to Jreferee's argument who pointed out that many of the sources really about the site's founder Joly MacFie, and he argued that a biographical article on MacFie would be better. Having looked at this article, I see that a substantial portion of it is about MacFie's accomplishments already, and it seems like a viable option to simply rename the article and change the lead sentence so that it becomes an article about MacFie. The combination of Sandstein's well-reasoned objection, and the possible option of a biographical article on Joly MacFie seems like sufficient grounds to call this a "no consensus" despite the 4-2 majority for deletion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:05, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
AfDs for this article:
- Punkcast (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This page seems to read like an advertisement. There is only one major contributor, WWWwhatsup,whereas if you Google punkcast, the first link says it is sponsored by WWWwhatsup. MarioNovi (talk) 00:31, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, sort of per WP:WEB but especially per WP:CSB. We are trying to create an encyclopedia here people. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:35, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:CSB is a reason to keep, but certainly not a valid reason to delete. (Joly is an acquaintance of mine, so I'm going to comment here, not !vote.)--Pharos (talk) 20:11, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:37, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:37, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:37, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It's true I have a direct interest. In the essential aspects I stuck strictly to secondary referenced material, and generally to NPOV. I would hope that notability is established by the two Village Voice Best awards and the use of Punkcast material to launch the WNYC NY Noise tv program. Also I have added to the article that a large exhibit of Punkcast was used to launch the FILMER LA MUSIQUE series in Paris in 2007. So, if one uses the same notability criteria as WP:MUSIC I think the article should pass. Wwwhatsup (talk) 05:27, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note While any AfD stands or falls on its merits, if you look at the contribs of the nominator, it would appear to be a WP:SPA, what's more an inexpert one.
I suspect some payback as I've done some tagging in my time..Wwwhatsup (talk) 06:29, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]- Hello Wwwwhatsup. I don't think that I terribly need to respond but I will. Whether I have edited before without a username isn't relevent, but the instructions for deletion say that "You must sign in to nominate pages for deletion. If you do not sign-in, or you edit anonymously, you will get stuck part way through the nomination procedure." Why are you pointing this out, if you say "any AfD stands or falls on its merits" then why even mention it? If I have a motive for doing this it isn't stronger than your motive for creating the article. I'm sorry if you feel like you have that many enemies here but accusing me like that I don't think helps you. If I do have a COI as you do it does not matter. If someone with a COI nominates an article for deletion out of spite and it shouldn't be deleted then no one will vote delete. That's the wikipedia's protection. If someone with a COI creates an article about their business and is the only editor, then anyone can nominate the article, and it will be at AFD. That's wikipedia's protection. Everything is going like it should. There's no reason to accuse me of spite because if my AFD had no merit it would get all keeps. Or am I wrong here, you're right I'm not that seasoned. If I'm wrong please tell me. Now I wish I didn't do this because people are accusing each other alot. I'm sorry if I seem angrered but I feel that you're accusing me. If the article's improved the it shouldn't be deleted that is obvious. But it seems like no one else edited it alot and it doesn't have alot of good sources. So I hope people see why I did it. Doesn't a company need more than a few passing mentions? A reason I nominated this article is because I realized that lots of sources listed, which are not really even good sources,were added years after the article was created,which also looks weird. I'm sorry for my long reply. I copied it in two places too. MarioNovi (talk) 09:40, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- NOTE: This user has admitted to editing as an IP before this, and that they created their account before nominating this article for deletion. They have done nothing wrong. gwickwiretalkedits 13:28, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that MarioNovi has done nothing wrong in making this AfD request. Assume good faith isn't just a good idea, it is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia. There is not clear evidence that MarioNovi is trying to harm the project. MarioNovi is entitled to an assumption of good faith and Wwwwhatsup should strike out the comment "I suspect some payback". -- Jreferee (talk) 08:47, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- NOTE: This user has admitted to editing as an IP before this, and that they created their account before nominating this article for deletion. They have done nothing wrong. gwickwiretalkedits 13:28, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Hello Wwwwhatsup. I don't think that I terribly need to respond but I will. Whether I have edited before without a username isn't relevent, but the instructions for deletion say that "You must sign in to nominate pages for deletion. If you do not sign-in, or you edit anonymously, you will get stuck part way through the nomination procedure." Why are you pointing this out, if you say "any AfD stands or falls on its merits" then why even mention it? If I have a motive for doing this it isn't stronger than your motive for creating the article. I'm sorry if you feel like you have that many enemies here but accusing me like that I don't think helps you. If I do have a COI as you do it does not matter. If someone with a COI nominates an article for deletion out of spite and it shouldn't be deleted then no one will vote delete. That's the wikipedia's protection. If someone with a COI creates an article about their business and is the only editor, then anyone can nominate the article, and it will be at AFD. That's wikipedia's protection. Everything is going like it should. There's no reason to accuse me of spite because if my AFD had no merit it would get all keeps. Or am I wrong here, you're right I'm not that seasoned. If I'm wrong please tell me. Now I wish I didn't do this because people are accusing each other alot. I'm sorry if I seem angrered but I feel that you're accusing me. If the article's improved the it shouldn't be deleted that is obvious. But it seems like no one else edited it alot and it doesn't have alot of good sources. So I hope people see why I did it. Doesn't a company need more than a few passing mentions? A reason I nominated this article is because I realized that lots of sources listed, which are not really even good sources,were added years after the article was created,which also looks weird. I'm sorry for my long reply. I copied it in two places too. MarioNovi (talk) 09:40, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, doesn't look notable to me, regardless of sourcing. If it gets a bit longer (with relavent good information), I may rethink. gwickwiretalkedits 13:28, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The article is a bit thin in that, given my interest, I was careful to maintain NPOV, not embellish, and stick to the sources. The deeper story, which is detailed fairly well in the Village Voice article is that MacFie had a background in in the punk P2P tradition, badges and fanzines, which led him to pioneer putting user-generated punk video up on the Internet, founding Punkcast in 1997 for that purpose. Then, as the local Brooklyn scene took off in the early 2000s, Punkcast videos of bands like the Moldy Peaches, Yeah Yeah Yeahs, and TV on the Radio were instrumental in giving those bands early exposure. Then, when the City took over WNYC TV as a municipal tv station, it launched it's official alternative music tv program on the back of the punkcast catalog. This was notable enough for the VV to run the feature. It is perhaps difficult now, with YouTube and when everyone has a camera in their phone, to perceive the site's historic role. Wwwhatsup (talk) 10:51, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - The topic has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. See WP:SIGCOV. The Village Voice article goes towards supporting a Wikipedia article on Joly MacFie, not Punkcast, as do several of the other references listed in the Punkcast article. Joly MacFie is mentioned in several Wikipedia articles.[1] Wwwhatsup, I suggest taking the information from the references and writing a biography article on Joly MacFie, which would have a much better chance of getting past AfD. Information on Punkcast could be included in the Joly MacFie article as it relates to his life and then Punkcast could be redirected to the Joly MacFie article. -- Jreferee (talk) 08:35, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- While I'm aware of good faith policy, one has to recognize that the only contributions of the nominator are put up to two articles that involve Macfie for AfD. Nevertheless I have struck my comment. To me Wikipedia acts as a reference, and I feel more people are likely to reference Punkcast than MacFie, and that is its role as an early web video site that is notable. MacFie wasn't the only contributor to Punkcast. I fail to see how the Village Voice article fails WP:SIGCOV. Wwwhatsup (talk) 21:17, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The article cites reliable source that substantially cover the subject, notably the Village Voice article linked to above. Several of the "delete" opinions are weakly argued. "Systemic bias" is not a reason for deletion (rather, for creating more articles about other subjects), the article does not read like an advertisement, and "doesn't look notable to me, regardless of sourcing" is nonsensical because notability is exclusively a matter of coverage by reliable sources. Sandstein 10:11, 12 January 2013 (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.