Talk:Doctor Who: Podshock

This article was nominated for deletion on 12 October 2023. The result of the discussion was redirect.

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Podcasting, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of notable podcasts and podcast-related information on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PodcastingWikipedia:WikiProject PodcastingTemplate:WikiProject Podcastingpodcasting

Doctor Who

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Doctor Who, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Doctor Who and its spin-offs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this notice, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Doctor WhoWikipedia:WikiProject Doctor WhoTemplate:WikiProject Doctor WhoDoctor Who

better

Just a quick thanks to the unknown user who added the correspondants section, and to Tim! who added categories.

Let's keep making this page better. Liyster 00:57, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If someone would include links to pocast rankings of Podshock. It would be inappropriate for me (being affiliated with the podcast) to do so based on wiki etiquette and conflicts of interest. This may help in the notability criterion.

I've heard that issue 1 of SciFi Now reviews Podshock. Can someone confirm?

Notability Rationale

Could whomever placed the notability tag please revisit this article in its current form and state whether notability has been established? The article is quite different from its April form. CzechOut 07:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted the notability thing, since it's a fully notable subject.--Rambutan (talk) 07:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Popularity

Regarding the statement that "Although Podshock was once the most prolific of the Doctor Who themed podcasts, its popularity has been in steady decline since July, 2007", the reference given is to iTunes, but iTunes does not allow the claim to be measured or verified. ---- The Missing Hour (talk) 18:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Itunes ratings can be easily skewed or forged altogether. There is no documentation whatsoever to prove 'success' based upon iTunes ratings; therefore this statement is irrelevant and should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.199.56.202 (talk) 20:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Outpost Gallifrey

Page currently says:

Although Outpost Gallifrey officially ceased as a portal website on December 1, 2007, the most popular parts of the website still continue and the site continues to support the podcast.

This needs citation and amplification. OG is just a portal now. It's merely a conduit by which some of the features of the old site can be accessed. Lyon said "All good things must come to an end, and so it is with Outpost Gallifrey", and "Outpost Gallifrey as you know it is dead", and " . . . while the Outpost itself goes away . . ." I mean, those are pretty definitive statements. Since there is no Outpost, how can it have a relationship with any one podcast? It doesn't seem to make a lot of sense to me. And this notion of "the site" is a falacious one as well. There is no single Outpost anymore. Gallifreyone.com is just the conduit by which people now get to DoctorWhoNews.com and DoctorWhoForum.com and other sites. Any claim that OG supports DW:P needs to have a better. referenced explanation of how that could be.

Perhaps the whole OG/DW:P relationship should simply be viewed historically, as that's the only thing that can be clearly cited (via a link to the last archived form of OG). Something like, "In 2007, Podshock enjoyed a unique relationship with Outpost Gallifrey. It was the only Doctor Who podcast the site sanctioned, just prior to the devolution of the site caused by the withdrawal of it's founder, Shaun Lyons."CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 04:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New notability tag

I see that a new notability tag has now appeared on the article. I was not the person to emplace that tag, and no rationale was given for it.

However, as one of the principle writers of the article, I feel like I can say that this article was written at a time when Podshock was a very different programme. It seemed to be on the cusp of breaking through and becoming the dominant Doctor Who podcast. However, since the article hasn't added any significant citations in the past five years, I'm inclined to believe its notability is harder to defend now. Moreover the current form of the show has little in common with what's described here. It's been hard to say for years who its main hosts were.

The article makes — well, to be precise, I made — a big deal of the connection to Shaun Lyon, but quite clearly Lyon has thrown his support behind Radio Free Skaro for the last few years. And the implosion of Outpost Gallifrey makes the Podshock/Lyons connection akin to saying, "I was the brother of the guy who married the girl that was my sister-in-law's secretary" — but he's dead now, so you can't talk to him." It's beyond trivial to say that you were, briefly, the official podcast of something that doesn't exist anymore – especially since Shaun Lyon has to date made significantly more appearances on Radio Free Skaro than Podshock.

As far as I can see, there are only two noteworthy things, and they're both dubious. First is the bit about Paul Cornell being a Podshock guy. But even that quote is old and likely not the case anymore. Second is the fact that they won the 2011 SFX Blog Awards and are, in that sense, an "award-winning podcast". But they were only competing against three other podcasts, none of which were Doctor Who-themed. It's not like they were chosen over Radio Free Skaro or The Doctor Who Podcast. The award therefore says nothing about their competency in their area of focus.

I just can't really think of anything that's truly grab-ya-by-the-short-and-curlies notable about this subject. They've not had the longest-running hosts. They weren't the first to market. The "first to have British and American hosts" thing that I put in seems like a stretch (and can't be backed up by citation). They've not had a notably great or sustained train of guests on the show. They don't have any awards to speak of. And there seems little argument for the inclusion of this article when there's not a similar article for Radio Free Skaro or, say, The Doctor Who Podcast. Taking a longer view of history than I had back in 2008, Podshock has turned out to be a fairly ordinary podcast. It is simply one of several hundred in the world of Doctor Who podcasts. It absolutely does not meet the standards of WP:GNG and should be deleted. CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 20:26, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Out of date/hiatus

This article seems to be mostly seven years old and does not mention the hiatus Podshock took after Hurricane Sandy.

The podcast recently returned from hiatus.

Most current episodes are hosted by Louis Trapani and Dave Cooper, with occasional guest hosts joining in. As I am one of the guest hosts, I can not objectively edit the main article in good conscience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.27.87.198 (talk) 01:28, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Doctor Who: Podshock. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:55, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]