Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Security Now!

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 (kept by default). The option to merge to Steve Gibson (computer programmer) was raised so I'll open a merge discussion - Nabla (talk) 19:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Security Now!

lacks reliable 3rd party references (existing references are either blogs, or primary sources), article fails to establish notability. Rtphokie (talk) 17:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Won Best Tech Podcast at People’s Choice Podcast Awards in 2007, has 100,000 downloads a an episode. Needs better sourcing, but this is problem to be solved with editing, not deletion. --Falcorian ^(talk) 17:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've seen some concerns expressed in the past with People’s Choice Podcast Awards being used as a reference to establish notability and would like to hear other editor's opinions on this. Certainly if this podcast is notable, additional 3rd party references can be located and added to this article during this AFD.--Rtphokie (talk) 17:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would not consider People’s Choice Podcast Awards a major award as it is clearly marketing by a non-notable company and therefore not independent, there are no guarantee as to the process or results. I agree that 2nd or 3rd party sources should exist if this was notable and i cannot find a single one. --neon white talk 20:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BJ^Talk 19:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No third party sources. Primarily original research from self-published sources. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 20:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

False. I disagree that it is unsourced. Keep. There are plenty of non-first party sources:

For these reasons, Keep --Inet^pup_:o3^{⌈〒⌋▰⌈♎⌋} 07:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those are all either blogs (which are prohibited as sources), schedules for the show (which do not provide any information) or are solely about Steve Gibson. There is little or no information about this show. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 16:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Steve Gibson (computer programmer). There's no reason to throw the content away, and the author is clearly notable, even if the podcast itself may not be. I would also have no heartburn with keeping this if sources to establish the podcast's notability are found. Jclemens (talk) 22:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it appears that even after some effort reliable 3rd party sources have not been located. I wasn't sure at first as it's clear a lot of work has gone into the article list, but that belongs elsewhere (like in the feed itself). samj (talk) 21:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Steve Gibson (computer programmer). Reduce the length of the article by deleting the episode list (not relevant to the article and now way out of date). Dsergeant (talk) 19:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as winner of significant award and subject of third-party coverage. Boing Boing clearly passes the bar for reliable self-published source. Blogs are not "prohibited", although lots of people say they are; there are more than a few solid, reliable blogs out there that pass WP:SPS. Ford MF (talk) 18:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Self published sources are only allowed in articles about themselves or when produced by an well known expert otherwise they are not reliable, therefore there is no bar to pass. Blogs are not considered reliable sources as they cannot be verified ("self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, knols, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable"). There is no evidence of any significant award. --neon white talk 18:40, 3 August 2008 (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.