Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/.NET Rocks!

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 - There isn't any significant coverage with which to establish notability.. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 13:03, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

.NET Rocks!

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

This page does not establish notability and seems to have been written by an author with a clear COI. Reichsfürst (talk) 19:13, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What can I do to improve the stub? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Softdevusa (talk • contribs)
Reading through the links I think the page should probably be kept but ideally needs to establish notability in the body of the article. Reichsfürst (talk) 19:21, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Added another resource to iTunes to establish notability in the body of the article.
Added another resource to www.ASP.net to establish notability in the body of the article.
Keep: This podcast is well known, currently has over 670 episodes. It has a spun off DNRTV screencast. Please help me improve the stub. Reichsfurst - I thank you for your comment on it should be kept after you read through the links. What do you suggest to establish notability in the body? I've edited it to improve it, do you have any other suggestions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Softdevusa (talk • contribs)
It reads much better now but what we really need is a quote about it from a newspaper or similar. Reichsfürst (talk) 12:12, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
NY Times newspaper article is now the 3rd reference reference. I thank you for your assistance.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:15, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ NY Times newspaper article is now the 3rd reference reference. Softdevusa (talk) 19:30, 23 June 2011 (UTC)You can only !vote once--v/r - T P 01:11, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article's subject fails to meet WP:N. While the article has seven references so far, they are all incapable of evidencing notability. The first reference is to the podcast's iTunes page, where it is offered. As a primary source, it does not evidence notability. The second reference is to www.asp.net, Microsoft's official ASP site, where the podcast is listed as a learning resource. As Microsoft has a vested interest in promoting the podcast, it is not evidence of notability. Even if this were to be ignored, the coverage does not give any reason to deem the podcast notable since the coverage is indiscriminate, non-critical guide-like.
The third is to a NYT article (the one mentioned in the above keep comment), but it does not evidence notability. WP:N requires that any coverage be non-trivial; and the NYT article falls below non-trivial, since its coverage of the topic is more accurately described as tangential. There are two mentions of .NET Rocks! in the article, and in both mentions, it isn't the central subject. The first mention is in a photo caption identifying the two people in the photo that also describes what they are doing (which happens to be editing .NET Rocks!). The second mention is around two-thirds of they way down the article, where .NET Rocks! is mentioned as an example of how easy it is for podcasts to reach a specific audience. The fourth reference does not indicate notability for the same reason as the NYT article: it talks about podcasting in general with .NET Rocks! used as an example of a podcast. Although the coverage is more substantial than the NYT coverage, it still does not constitute as "non-trivial".
The fifth reference is to DevProConnections, which is just an excerpt of a podcast transcript edited by the podcast's host Richard Campbell. The policies and guidelines don't discuss whether this sort of source indicates notability, but because these are transcript excerpts, I think it is reasonable to class it as a primary source. The sixth reference is once again trivial coverage. Lastly, the seventh reference is a transcript of a .NET Rocks podcast posted at a blog. It does not indicate notability for the same reason as the fifth reference.
Searching for ".NET Rocks!" +podcast -blog -forum on Google Web returns 333 "unique" results. The first few pages (of 20 results each) do not appear to contain coverage of the broadcast that can indicate notability. Searching for ".NET Rocks!" on Google News returns four trivial/press release results; and Books returns one un-previewable result that appears to mention the podcast as part of an author biography, judging from the text snippet viewable. Rilak (talk) 05:31, 25 June 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.