Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Day9 Daily episodes

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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:41, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Day9 Daily episodes

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

List article that consists of a whole series of a non-notable podcast. E. Fokker (talk) 21:43, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep valid subarticle of day9 which got a notable (WP:GNG award --212.45.116.90 (talk) 10:53, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttal

This is the third time E. Fokker has tried to deleted this article.

The first time was under Speedy Deletion C7. From CSD A7: This criterion applies only to articles about web content and to articles about people, organizations, and individual animals themselves, not to articles about their books, albums, software, or other creative works. Since a podcast is a creative work, I do not feel this criterion applies.

The second time the review for deletion resulted in a keep. I feel the continued attempt to remove this article is due to the lack of knowledge on the importance of a player based community for a game that has been an major contributing factor for Blizzard Entertainment's economic and future game development growth since 1998. Please review the Cultural Impact section of StarCraft Franchise. I would recommend E. Fokker and other whose weild the power of deletion to become more familiar with the subjects they are recommending, prior to taking "aim" at an article they do not feel is worthy of the world to have access too.

Please provide a link to the previous deletion discussion. Reach Out to the Truth 18:31, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, are you referring to the PROD when you refer to the second time? If so, you objected to the deletion yourself. That is not keep consensus, it just means at least one person thinks the page shouldn't be deleted through that process. AFD is an appropriate venue if a PROD is contested, so E. Fokker has done nothing wrong there.

I also see no record of a speedy deletion attempt in this article's history. I do see two successful speedy deletions in the deletion log though. Please do not recreate articles that are deleted through any deletion process. If they are to be brought back, they must be undeleted instead. A7 can apply to podcasts by the way, as they are web content. A7 doesn't apply to "other creative works", where "other" means non-web content. Reach Out to the Truth 18:50, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you refer to my Talk page you will see the multiple attempts to delete this article. Day[J] Fan 19:49, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If non-web media is the intent of C7 then prehaps a less ambiguous description needs to be drafted to removed any doubt as to the intent of other creative works.

The deeds of Day[9] are notable, as his article remains intact. Since these deeds constitute analysis of game mechanics and theories via podcast, would it not make the podcasts themselves notable? Day[J] Fan 20:08, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see two speedy deletions (both of which were successful), a declined PROD (declined by you), and the AFD discussion that we're currently participating in. Bringing a declined PROD to AFD is not unusual at all, and by no means a bad thing. I ignore the CSDs in this case because they were successful, leading to the page's deletion. It's the page's recreation (twice) that was inappropriate, but I am willing to ignore that too. So all we have is E. Fokker PRODing a page instead of CSDing it, and then bringing it to AFD when the PROD failed. I don't see the problem. Rather, E. Fokker gave the article another chance at surviving.

This is the first time I've seen anyone confused by that particular part of criterion A7, so I'm not convinced it needs to be revised. At least you know now.

Although Day[9] may well be notable, that does not make anything he's involved with notable. You see, notability is not inherited; Plott's podcast does not inherit the notability of Plott himself. Is it notable? I don't know. I don't have an opinion on this right now. It's something that I'd have to look into, which I might do later. Reach Out to the Truth 23:22, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – We don't have an article on the show itself, only on Sean Plott, in which it looks like he is more notable for his professional gaming career than his webcast. –MuZemike 06:15, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a valid split per WP:SPLIT.If an article becomes too large or a section of an article has a length that is out of proportion to the rest of the article it is recommended that a split be carried out. In some cases refactoring an article into child or sister articles can allow subtopics to be discussed more fully elsewhere without dominating a general overview article to which they are non-central (but only if the new articles are themselves sufficiently notable to be included in the encyclopedia. Because the main article will be too long if all his dailys were put on the day9 article splitting that part of the article out is a good idea --212.45.116.90 (talk) 05:11, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no article that this could have been split from, and thus nowhere to merge to either. There is no Day9 Daily article, and this content would not be appropriate for the Sean Plott article. Reach Out to the Truth 22:59, 2 March 2011 (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.