Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keith and The Girl

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. Per consensus and nominator [1]. (Non-admin closure) —Travis^talk 14:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Keith and The Girl

Keith and The Girl (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

About some kind of online video recording described by its authors as "Keith and his girlfriend talk shit. Hmmmm." --Tony Sidaway 18:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment if 'the girl'- the other presenter- Chemda Khalili is actually noteable then this might be noteable. If you scroll down this article to the list of guests they've had on the programme, there are quite a lot that have blue links to their own article.Merkinsmum 19:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment The subject of this wiki page is a well-known podcast and the podcasters behind it. They have been covered in print (www.observer.com/2007/mr-and-mrs-shock-pod-queens) and radio media and are among the more well-known and followed podcasts. This wiki entry has been previously unsuccessfully challenged on notability and encyclopedic value. Though podcasting was once new to wiki...it is now more widely accepted and of notability and encyclopedic value (a simple search on "podcasting" will clarify it's validity). KATG, from their large internet presence, media attention (print and radio), and impact/voice in the podcasting community is of notability and value to include in wikipedia. The subject matter of this podcast is mature and comedic...so I can appreciate that their tag line ("Keith and his girlfriend talk shit.") may lead some to think that this wiki entry was a joke entry....it isn't...
  
  In my opinion, the AFD tagging of this article is without merit...and the tagger may have reacted too soon...in light of their "online video recording" comment.

• Guide to deletion Tony - I'm assuming you have some reservations about this article. As per the Nomination section on the Wikipedia:Guide to deletion article, would it perhaps be better to

"consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a "cleanup" template, instead of bringing the article to AfD"

and

"invite discussion on the talk page by using the notability template"

instead of nominating the article for deletion? I had a quick look under the talk page but I couldn't find any reservations anyone had expressed about the article.

Also, would it be an idea to explain why you're nominating it? As the Wikipedia:Guide to deletion suggests under the Discussion section

"Always explain your reasoning"

Is there anything particular in the article that prompts you to put it up for deletion? 172.212.29.29 19:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• keep The nominator does not list any reasons for this article to be deleted. It does not meet any of the qualifications on the Reasons for Deletion page. This podcast is notable in the vast number of listeners, its popularity as frequent number one podcast at Podcast Alley, and other reasons mentioned above.68.62.22.139 21:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• keep This article is part of the Podcasting WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's knowledge of notable podcasts, and podcast-related information. 150.203.35.205 00:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. A google news search [2] suggests some third-party discussion, though mainly concerning a cyber-squatting case. Best regards TreeKittens 00:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep No reason for deletion is given and the nominator has obviously done no research on this topic. Keith and the Girl is a massively popular podcast. This article is from the New York Observer [3] Nick mallory 00:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per non-trivial coverage in reliable source found by Nick mallory. Article topic is notable and verifiable from independent sources. TreeKittens 00:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Just because the tagline has vulgarities doesn't mean it should be deleted from Wikipedia. This project is not censored and is hardly grounds for deletion. The podcast has enough daily reach and cited print articles and national radio interviews to meet notability. I expect this should WP:SNOW soon. --Breno ^talk 01:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The podcast does seem to have gotten enough coverage in mainstream sources to merit an article. --- The Bethling^(Talk) 01:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep because no reason for deletion is given in the nomination (or anywhere else in this AfD, for that matter. -Chunky Rice 03:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This is a top rated podcast in podcast alley , they have won overseas podcasting awards ,KATG's had a large noticable presents in the main stream media mid july 07 , the 100's of podcasting articles in main stream media print and TV where KATG are either featured or mentioned heres is a reference for them from New Zealand from 2 weeks ago www.nzherald.co.nz/index.cfm?objectid=10453943 I know they have global appeal to tens of thousands of listerners Cameronpatterson
• Keep. This article was put up for proposed deletion [4] a couple of days ago and the reason given was that it "Seems to be about some kind of video blog". The article isn't about a video blog it's about an audio podcast that's produced 500+ shows. More importantly merely being a video blog is just not a reason for wanting to delete an article. Is there something about video blogs (aka video podcasts, not that this is one) that precludes them from an encyclopaedia? The deletion proposal doesn't seem to have been thought through. "Hmmmm" is not the best form of reasoning when you're trying to get an article removed. I think it's an OK article. It's not amazing but it's definitely not bad. It looks like it has references from reasonably noteworthy sources too. There is a New York Times [5] reference if anyone wants to add it to the references section (you need to sign up a free account with the NYT to view it). The podcast has a large following (I've read their merchandising sales on their own quoted as $80000+ in a news article somwhere recently which seems to indicate a large fanbase), their fans regularly tattoo themselves with the podcast's logo which in my book is heading towards a cult following, it's spawned three other related podcasts, a cultural popularisation of the word "Brumski", a micro culture of wearing of logo'd t-shirts on Wednesday's and has been featured in their niche's media [6]. There's plenty of notability although notability isn't actually the objection, being a video blog (sic) is. D2lraXBlZGlh 04:32, 8 August 2007 (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.