Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Revision3 Studios second nomination

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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Unsigned votes have been discounted, but after looking at the legitimate votes there appears to be a consensus to let this article stay. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:17, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not notable. Considered carefully after looking at old Afd. Still nominated. Delete. brenneman^(t)(c) 01:28, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP, please? Truly notable- you see & read about all related items to Rev3- everywhere, it seems? It appears there is some sort of personal issue here with individual(s) having a personal grudge/agenda against the creators of Rev3? I hope to see all info presented to me online- not just what someone with a grudge wants/doesn't want me to see (based on thier own bias)?

• KEEP IT!!!
• OMFG!. Dude, you are messing in places that ought not to be messed in. Revision3 Studios creates, I would say, the most popular technology vidcasts and podcasts anywhere. They created http://www.digg.com which is up there, if not greater than slashdot. Their podcasts and other technology shows are the most downloaded anywhere and would easily get over 100,000 downloads oer episode. You will have every single geek screaming at you in the next few hours, enjoy :D Treelovinhippie 04:43, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...http://www.digg.com which is up there, if not greater than slashdot. - LOL, I would love to see a source for that hyperbolic claim.--Isotope23 19:53, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well it definately looks better than slashdot and actually has an exponentially growing audience and member following
• To Admins: Please take note that the user who has tagged this article for deletion has surprising done so with many of the other articles I have created/editted. He obviously likes the conflict it causes (as can be seen in the 'dispute box' which is on his user page). Treelovinhippie 05:41, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I think it goes without saying that Treelovinhippie's comments here and on his user page (both exhibiting ignorance of wikipedia policy and community norms, and an insulting lack of respect for his fellow wikipedians) warrants more attention from administrators than a perfectly reasonable AfD. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:37, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  Frankly, for his direct suggestion to others that they come to Wikipedia and vandalize user page, I don't think it would be too inappropriate for Treelovinhippie to get a time-out to think about how to play nicely with others. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:47, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Despite qualification by nominator, obvious bad faith nomination. Overwhelming keep vote last time. AfD does not exist in order to keep voting on articles until you get the result you want.--Nicodemus75 05:48, 4 October 2005 (UTC)Insert non-formatted text here[reply]

• Not bad faith, I promise. And I agree that AfD shouldn't just be recycled. I'd simply hoped for a cleaner discussion of the facts:
• The previous AfD starts with one fact. Then a slew of votes. No part of the discussion there convinced me that this article was about something encyclopedic. If this discussion can do better, if someone has evidence that this has encyclopedic value, I'll be happy. - brenneman^(t)(c) 06:01, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Revision3 is very notable, they produce some of the most widely followed online technology-related video content, run by noteworthy people with a large following. They are heavily referenced and linked to on many blogs and news sites; even recieving some broadcast television mentions during news programs, often used as a high-profile example of the podcasting craze. --Kyelewis 06:38, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I hate to be repetitive, but links? Citations? Where can we see that it's "widely followed"? What television shows, and how can we confirm that? Thanks. - brenneman^(t)(c) 06:43, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Google for "Revision3" and you'll find many hits. The blog page at http://alexalbrecht.typepad.com/alex/2005/08/abc_news_video_.html from Alex Albrecht's website (Co-host of the Revision3 show "diggnation") has a link to ABC News's small news bit of 'podcasting', uses the show and video of the Revision3 show. Revision3 now has Jay Adelson as a CEO (Apparently Fouder and Chief Technology Officer of Equinix, Inc. according to http://krose.typepad.com/kevinrose/2005/05/revision3_systm.html). Revision3 is also mentioned in this CNET News article by the CNET News editor Tom Merritt, "Web makes TV a medium for the masses" at http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-3000-6268102-1.html --Kyelewis 10:21, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To add to that, a google search for Revision3 should be for the keyword "Revision3". It is not fair to google search for "Revision3 Studios" when it is not the commonly used form. A search for "Microsoft Corporation" brings up 10% of the results that "Microsoft" does, for example.

• Keep notable company. Google test returns 216,000 hits for "Revision3" I don't see how this is "not notable". -- Malo 07:32, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - also, the old AfD you to posted, well that was back 4 months ago, and honestly I would have voted to delete it back then, because back then it was unheard of, going from 0 google hits to 149 by the time the AfD ended. Now it has over 200,000 hits. hence the main reason I voted to keep. -- Malo 07:37, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I used a slightly tighter search and get 109 hits, or even less than last time. - brenneman^(t)(c) 08:33, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Evidence. For those of you people who don't have a clue as to the popularity of Revision3 Studios....
  • http://www.podcastalley.com/podcast_details.php?pod_id=5622
  • Diggnation (one of their weekly podcasts) is currently #12 on iTunes - screenshot
  • Now as I have stated before, it is often difficult to state exact figures on the number of downloads per podcast, as often these are distributed via bittorrent (which is very difficult to track) and the podcasts end up all over the net with various other sources distributing it.
  • As I have said, also, the host/s of this show have featured on TWiT at least once (and in most cases more). TWiT is the number one podcast on the internet and has been at the top of the iTunes charts for a long time. They are a technology podcast and only feature people who are interesting and are well-known (i.e. this podcasts' host). That in itself should be enough to justify its popularity.
  • Another thing I'll post is a link to a post on http://www.digg.com (a social bookmarking site). Basically the number of 'diggs' is how many people have clicked to 'digg' it and is an indication of its popularity. See an example of a digg article posted for this podcast here: http://www.digg.com/links/Diggnation_Episode_12_-_September_15,_2005
• Keep, the company has created Systm and thebroken both known in the internet technology circles. Also the previous nom. was clearly a keep. feydey 09:39, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per results of original AfD, especially as Aaron Brenneman has given no new information to warrant the re-AfDing. — ceejayoz ^★ 15:43, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• People Think that if an article survived VFD it Stays for Good and can't be nominated again but still any article could be nominated again if the user thinks it should be. Im voting Delete just to cansel out another vote --JAranda | yeah 18:52, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I presume you're talking about me. I'm fine with re-AfDing an article, but not without a reason to do so. Saying "yeah, I know it survived earlier, but I'm putting it up again anyways" is silly without more explanation. — ceejayoz ^★ 20:48, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • There was no evidence it was encyclopedic then, there does not seem to be any now. It's not a vote, it's a discussion. It's about logic as much an consensus. - brenneman^(t)(c) 06:15, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable. I have yet to see good evidence of notability posted here. Diggs.com "diggs" should be discounted here as it is Revision3's site and can't be taken as impartial. The fact that some of the principles on this site have been featured on TWiT is totally irrelevant. Looking at the google hits, by and large the results returned are either mentions on sites owned and run by Revision3 or various blogs and message boards. A mention of an ABC news story on a website run by a Revision3 affiliated person isn't very compelling evidence either. I listened to a whole segment about 419eater.com on NPR one morning but I don't see anyone citing that as a reason for them to have their own wiki article. Kevin Roses' blog entry is just that... a blog entry. Not good evidence of notability. The CNET article is the only piece of decent evidence that has been provided showing anyone in technology is independently writing about this company... but one article does not establish notability. Diggnation seems to have a moderate level of popularity, but are you trying to argue that the notability of the product confers notability back on the company, everyone involved, and the company's other auxillary products? I think that is a rather tenuous argument and that doesn't support inclusion of 90% of the material in the article, even if one accepts it. Looking back at the previous AfD, it appears there were quite a few first time voters who have not been very active outside of that vote. Rather than vote on this based on the previous AfD, I'd ask editors to look at this AfD based on the merits of the arguments and evidence for and against deletion.--Isotope23 20:19, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It should be noted that digg.com is not a Revision3 site, although to make it clear, Kevin Rose is a common party involved in both some running of the digg website as well as some running of Revision3. He is not a whole part of either. "Diggs" are an indicator of popularity voted by internet users, rather than the people who run the site.
  • Mentions on 'various blogs and noticeboards' immediately serve to show the popularity of the company in the eyes of the internet public, which is what is being measured here.
  • Diggnation, Systm and thebroken all have a large amount of popularity. If they are all produced by the same group of people under the same umbrella, it makes sense to post them under the one umbrella on wikipedia rather than clutter the namespace unnecessarily. --Kyelewis 07:22, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Digg.com isn't owned by Revision3, so I've stricken that part of my statement above. It still can't be seen as totally impartial though as KR is involved in both. I understand that how the voting works, but there is an obvious potential for conflict of interest via cross promotion, vote stuffing, etc. I'm not saying these things have happened, but the potential is there and it is enough that I'd discount this as a piece of evidence.

I don't accept your argument that mentions on various blogs and notice boards serve to show the popularity of the company in the eyes of the internet public. It simply shows the popularity among a subset of people that frequent these particular message boards and blogs. Scanning through google hits it appeared that where the result was relevent to this actual company, many entries were repeats of threads from the same message board. There are lots of topics that get this sort of chatter among a subset of the internet, but that doesn't make them notable to the general public or even to the larger subculture.

Finally, are you suggesting then that the thebroken article should be deleted and replaced with a redirect to the Revision3 article so it appears under the same umbrella? I would disagree with that. In fact, I would argue that thebroken is the only article that should stay (as it is the only product that appears to have a true level of notability and Revision3 should be contained to a one sentence mention in that article as the producing company.--Isotope23 13:30, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Which is interesting, because I would probably see thebroken as the least notable of the Revision3 in terms of overall internet popularity, given it's limited run of 3 episodes and slightly more niche programming content. I'm going to have to leave my argument there, because I unfortunately don't have time to continue to find more evidence and arguments. At one point, people didn't think of "Revision3" or "Rev3", they instead thought about the specific content, "Systm", "thebroken" and later "diggnation". It probably was not until Revision3 started taking major sponsors and memberships that people were thinking about the company name itself. You can't buy a "systm" or "thebroken" membership, you buy a "Revision3" membership to see early content. Obviously, I have no numbers to confirm quite how many people have done so. In this way, I would see Revision3 as popular for systm and thebroken in the same way I would see Rooster Teeth Productions as popular for Red Vs Blue and The Strangerhood --Kyelewis 20:44, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as per feydey. ~⌈Markaci⌋ 2005-10-4 T 23:52:57 Z

• Keep The #12 iTunes podcast is notability, whether some anti-Revision3 crusader likes it or not. These nominations are getting more and more rediculous.--CastAStone 01:45, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- notable per evidence given above. Ben D. 02:03, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The evidence presented here convinces me that the company is notable. -- DS1953 03:30, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • You mean the screeenshot of one of their shows? At number 12? Is that the evidence you're refering to? - brenneman^(t)(c) 06:15, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Why don't you consider it notable based on the screenshot? The others there include NPR, iTunes, CBS, Al Franken, FOX and ESPN, all notable enough for Wikipedia. #12 in iTunes is pretty notable, considering some of the more obscure stuff WP carries. — ceejayoz ^★ 19:16, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Verifiable. That's actually a requirement. Is there a link that shows this #12 listing?
        brenneman^(t)(c) 22:20, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Think outside the square you retard! Go and have a look YOURSELF at how 'NOTABLE' all these shows/podcasts are that you're trying to delete from wikipedia
      • In order to verify the iTunes ranking you'll have to see it for yourself in the iTunes program. There doesn't appear to be an offical apple listing of podcast rankings. However, some more popular podcast sites rate diggnation as #2 on Odeo and #19 on podcastalley. Sure these aren't official and they are likely always changing, but thats as best as I can verify it without using iTunes. -- Malo 23:53, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• keep, as per above evidence and previous afd. Wandering oojah 19:09, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral, leaning towards delete. It seems quasi-notable. I'd be tempted to vote delete just from the attitude shown by some of its supporters, but that probably wouldn't be too accurate. Bushytails 06:57, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: As per above, the people behind it are notable (and hence have Wikipedia entries) and the shows produced are notable, and have a large viewership. Also, note that the previous VfD ended with the majority voting to keep the article. — Peter McGinley 12:38, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is a separate entity and should have its own page. AyrtonSenna
• KEEP! To remove this is like removing the This Week in Tech page.

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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.