- 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 of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:09, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is a self-promotion for a webumentary production company , see User:Ravenswood Media the source of this article. The user has been spamming a variety of pages with links to its webumentaries. Vsmith 03:52, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete 170 unique Google hits out of 700 total. Not a widely used term, even on the web. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:10, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, for Starblind's reason above. Have never heard of the term; 'webumentarian' even less.—Stombs 04:44, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Save It is quite a notible term. It is a term much like 'bloging' and 'podcast'. It's roots come from what it does. Some are abstract like 'bloging' while others make sense such as 'podcast'. 'podcast' comes from ipod and broadcast. This article is a legitiment entree. It would hurt Wikipedia's extensive knowledge if it was deleted. Furthermore, despite you allugations that this is spaming 'webumentaries', it is actually showing examples, much like to show an example of a fast-food restaurant you might show an example of Waffle House. It would be considered spamming the Waffle Houses but implimenting them to serve a purpose as to enlighten people as to what an actually 'webumentary' is. Also these three 'webumentaries' are all of different organizations.-Kyle 1:39, 24/12/05(eastern/pacific)
- Kyle, how is it 'notible' and why is it a 'legitiment entree' (sic)? I assume you mean 'blogging', which comes from 'web log' and 'logging', so it is certainly not 'abstract', and has a similar derivation as 'Podcast'. When you search Google, you find these words mentioned in abundance. You do not for webumentary. Could you give us a reason this article is 'notible'? If it's because the word is made up of two others, then anyone can concoct a variety of words, so that is not a compelling reason. Without reasons for the article's legitimacy, my objection remains.—Stombs 08:08, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply To put that comparison to the test, "Blog" gets 506,000,000 Google hits, "blogging" gets 87,000,000 hits, and "podcast" gets 84,900,000. "webumentary" gets at most 700, and that's including all the duplicates. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:16, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and Starblind. --Krich (talk) 08:03, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - It sounds like a neogism that may some day become notable, but hasn't happened yet - just around 700 google. Blackcats 10:32, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete nn neol. Zzzzz 15:57, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Vsmith and Starblind. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:37, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Starblind. It may exist and be real. But notable means it's in wide use or at least well-known (in this case). Starblind's research proofs this doesn't compare to blogging or podcasting. - Mgm|(talk) 22:26, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - FrancisTyers 23:59, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, Pavel Vozenilek 08:51, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral - Ravenswood Media- I won't debate whether the term "webumentary" is ready for Wikipedia. I'll leave that to the experts and defer to their decision. However, I do take exception to the characterization that www.midwestfrogs.com and www.cavebiota.com are spam or self promotion. Both sites are free, offer objective educational points of view and neither site has ads or banners. They are not personal websites, they are sponsored by not-for-profit organizations; Indiana Karst Conservancy, Hoosier National Forest and the Chicago Herpetological Society. The sites provide both information and entertainment and extend the value of Wikipedia beyond text and still images. I offered the sites in good faith and did it in a transparent manner.
- Comment only: this is a fair comment on the part of Ravenswood Media, though I still think the term hasn't become commonplace. —Stombs 12:11, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as 50% non-notable neologism and 50% promotion of non-notable enterprises. Worthy, but not notable. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 17:24, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Save: Among the documentary community the term "webumentary" is becoming commonplace - and the phenomenon if not the word has been around at least since the turn of the 21st century (see for eg. www.littledove.org/frameset.html for a pioneering version by Australian filmaker Marcus Gillezau). It is an apt and useful neologism which is rapidly gaining acceptance as the technology for streaming video is taken up by documentary filmmakers who want to reach a broad non-commercial audience and to have regular upgrades of their work. The fact that Ravenswood Media use their own links as one of several examples is irrelevant - as they point out, the sites are free and have no ads or banners and have important environmental concerns as their primary motive. The internet is rapidly transforming the whole documentary game and webumentaries are leading the way in terms of developing radical, socially useful outlets for actuality filmmakers' work and for a growing audience. It is already happening in terms of sourcing archival footage (see for example www.archive.org, www.absolutelywildvisuals.com). The number of numerical Google hits compared to "blogging" is irrelevant - you might as well compare it to the number of hits for "books". It would seem absurd to delete "webumentary' from Wikipedia just as the phenomenon is about to take off, and Ravenswood Media are to be congratulated for bringing the term to a wider (and one would hope more enlightened) public.Mozofilms 06:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment only: perhaps if it is 'becoming commonplace' we might wait till it is before inclusion? JMO: I don't feel we should be preempting the future here. —Stombs 12:11, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Save - Since the self-promotion charge has been reasonably nullified, the only remaining objection appears to focus on whether or not the term is "commonplace". In response, I respectfully suggest that readers consult the Wikipedia entry for "commonplace" - ironically, "webumentary" would be concisely defined by the etymological root of this term. How disappointing it would be if Wikipedia and its users impede the wonderful dynamic of human language by limiting the validity of new terms according to their google ratings! 70.224.66.146 19:50, 29 December 2005 (UTC)Laurie How many unique Google hits did "wikipedia" have on this date five years ago? 70.224.66.146 20:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)Laurie[reply]
Additional comment: a perfunctory search of EBSCO Host produced these 3 citations referring to "webumentary":Frontline to create "Webumentary", Tedesco, Richard. Broadcasting & Cable. New York: Nov 11, 1996.Vol.126, Iss. 47; pg. 66, 1 pgs This week's Web Winners: Smoking out tobacco sites , Philadelphia Inquirer, The (PA), Oct 15, 2002 Database: Newspaper Source Boulder, Colo.-based publisher tracks people's journeys online, By: Toland, Sarah, Daily Camera (Boulder, CO), Jul 14, 2005 Database: Newspaper Source
70.224.66.146 22:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)Laurie[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.