Talk:Binary Revolution Radio

message: Binary Revolution Radio has hosted a panel at a national conference, HOPE 2006. 
* http://www.hopenumbersix.net/speakers.html (scroll down)
* https://www.ncrsusa.com/cgi-bin/store/hope6-B14.html
The individual hosts of Binary Revolution Radio are also quite notable, as are the co-hosts. You can see a partial list of notable co-hosts on the main page of this article. Also, individual hosts and co-hosts have been speakers at public events and conferences, and have published works of their own.
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StankDawg
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strom_Carlson
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Ratchet
--Othtim 00:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Notability

message: Yeah, so, I'm not convinced by these arguments.
First, I don't think you can claim notability for a podcast just because it's distributed in podcast directories. NEWS.GOOGLE.COM finds no cites in any news media. Secondary sources need to be *independent*, meaning, not dictated by the subject. 
Second, your snake is eating its tail on the "StankDawg is notable!" argument. StankDawg's assertion of notability depends on this subject. This subject cannot then assert notability based on "StankDawg". 
Third, hundreds of thousands of people share the same credentials as are imputed to "StankDawg" ("associates degree", "years experience as systems analyst"). None of them are notable.
Similarly, hundreds of people have had articles published on 2600. It is far *harder* to get a story fronted on Slashdot or voted up on Reddit than it is to get a submission accepted to 2600, and yet the overwhelming majority of people with popular blog posts from Slashdot and Reddit are clearly not notable.
Can someone make a strong argument for the subject of this article, or can I AfD it as just another vanity page about someone's podcast?
Tqbf 00:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Welcome to Wikipedia, ISeal. You will find that on WP, notability has an actual definition. --- tqbf 22:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you for the welcome, tqbf. In reading the article you pointed to in the above, I failed to see how this article on Binary Revolution Radio contravened any of the points made. The article is not a dictionary entry, publishing original thought, making political/religious statements (soapbox), hosting the episodes themselves, a directory of the episodes, a manual/guidebook/textbook, etc. Thanks though the link, it was a nice read. --ISeal 01:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Notability (Redux)

message: This page has been tagged as non-notable for coming up on two months. I've seen arguments on this page, but not one reliable source added to back up the notability of the show. Fair warning: the arguments will matter far less than the sources will when this page gets AfD'd.
--- tqbf 02:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability ReRedux 

message: What about nuking this page, and creating a page for Binary Revolution, as a whole? I'd be up for working on it. --Othtim (talk) 01:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it merges in StankDawg and Strom Carlson and Digital DawgPound, I say, bless you! --- tqbf 03:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Amalgamation