Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daily Source Code

Delete. Per nomination. --Timecop 03:27, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. -- Femmina 05:06, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable google presence [1]. Dottore So 08:18, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Daily Source Code is one of the most popular podcasts in the world, made by "the father of podcasting", former MTV VJ Adam Curry. As I understand it, the show has hundreds of thousands of listeners (the files have to be served by four load-balanced high-bandwidth servers). Most podcasts are tiny and articles about them would amount to vanity, but this one does not. Haakon 08:22, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dottoreso and Haakon. DVD+ R/W 08:42, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable podcast. 400,000 results on Google for Daily Source Code see [2]. Capitalistroadster 10:30, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable. Kudos to Dottore So and Capitalistroadster for providing links, scowls to Haakon for making claims without citing sources. But blogs always have lots of google hits, they're incestuous, so lets look a bit harder, ok? Alexa is average at 180K, there is nothing in the first five pages of the search I did to make a splash, with similarly uninspring results with Dottore So's slightly different search. So I'd be saying "delete" but Google news saves the day, showing it mentioned in a few places with some credibility. Whew! - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 10:43, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for researching for me ;-) My only claim, though, was "as I understand it". Haakon 11:40, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bah! I'm such an easy mark. I won't be fooled into doing your dirty work for you again... today... on this afd...
brenneman ^(t)^(c) 11:46, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this nomination appears to be part of a GNAA troll campaign. Note that this does not mean the article should be kept, but is merely something to bear in mind before casting a vote. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 13:03, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- What! But those jolly fellows have never led us astray before, why shouldn't we trust them now?
  brenneman ^(t)^(c) 13:19, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- At risk of violating WP:BEANS, if the GNAA wants to troll WP by cleaning out vanity articles in an orderly way according to policy, they're free to do so. I haven't seen any disruption caused by these AFDs; consensus has been clear in almost every case. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 13:44, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]