Deletion of The 404 podcast

Comment: and '''salt''' And I use Buzz Out Loud as a baseline for this. BOL achieved notability by becoming the top podcast on iTunes, among other reasons. The 404 comes nowhere close to achieving any form of notability. Remember now that notability does not mean thousands of people know about the show. The show, rather, should contribute something that reaches the general popular culture. This article relies too much on , and I'm afraid that we're going to see a flood of fans creating content on their web pages in order to be used as sources for this article. As I suggested in the talk page, create this article off-line and then publish it when it has satisfied notability and include reliable 3rd-party sources, rather than creating the article and then spending weeks making the article compliant. I see far too articles being create prematurely
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:SELFPUB)

Comment: One other thing I want to point out, and that is . This essay basically suggests that if a large percentage of this article, such as the inside jokes listing or the guest list, cannot for the life of it be verified by independent sources, the article can actually lean towards , where "the specific focus of the discussion may be that the article is a compilation of facts that reliable sources outside of fan-based reliable sources have not found interesting enough to publish." To paraphrase, others can  in order to boost the independent sources, but if these kinds of sources are overwhelmingly being used, then the article can be interpreted as not being notable. Sources outside of the clique should be talking about show
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fancruft (WP:FANCRUFT||WP:NOT||WP:SELFPUB)

Comment: I, and other editors here, disagree. This is clearly a CNET production.  The shows email address is @cnet.com , the podcast is listed in iTunes under artist "CNET.com".  Previous comments on this article identified it as a CNET production.  That was when it was used as an argument to show its notability. Now its being argued not to be a CNET production in hopes of fitting it into 's criteria.  This isn't a game of save the article, we cant have it both ways.  Also, please don't accuse editors of bad faith and let's focus on discussing the merits of this article.  This isn't an us vs. them contest.  This discussion is quickly becoming very polarized.  Disagreement doesn't equate to bad faith.  Also, while the podcast's tactics are not a disqualifier for a Wikipedia article, they need to be taken into account by the closing admin in determining if creation protection should be applied should the outcome here be delete
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)

Comment: Failure to understand notability guidelines and the irrelevence of |other articles that don't meet them
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS)

Comment: Complete failure to provide independent |reliable sources. I speedy deleted this yesterday under criterion G4, reposting of deleted material (see rticles for deletion/The 404). When I deleted it yesterday, I also userfied the text, advising the editor to locate independent reliable sources. Discussion about that was placed at Talk:The 404 podcast - and that page was tagged {{Template:g8-exempt|g8-exempt}} and was visible even as the next iteration of the article was created. It's still there as of right now. Since the article was recreated today, I take that as a sign that other editors concede that there are no further independent sources to be found
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:A)

Comment: as recreation expected). Many sources, but nothing reliable. Little notability, and certainly |no inherent notability "because it's CNET". Seems an obvious close to me, so I'm slightly perturbed by all these keep !votes with very weak reasoning
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:INHERITED)

Comment: we must be going for a record for comments from s here
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Single-purpose account (WP:SPA)