Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stupid and contagious

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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. Petros471 15:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stupid and contagious

edit

A Friday night public-radio show in Sitka, Alaska. Zany? Maybe. Notable? Not so much. (The bad photos don't help the "Amateur-Night-in-Dixie" look of the article.) Was Prod'ed, by tag removed by creator with the comment, Removal of deletion proposal because the personal opinion that this radio show isn't "notable" is not a viable reason for deletion. This article meets all four policies in the deletion policy. Calton | Talk 06:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Strong Keep This show airs on Raven Radio, a legitimate public station in Alaska. This isn't some guy broadcasting his pirate radio show from his bedroom, this is a legit (maybe small fanbase but still legit) show on a legitimate FCC certified radio station. Therefore, it isn't a vanity piece. On Wikipedia we have dozens of entries for small TV stations, radio stations, and radio shows. Is it notable? To the listeners of the radio station it MUST be since it is still on the air. Just because it is a small fanbase does NOT mean it is NOT notable. We have entries on artists and jazz muscians who NO ONE has heard of outside their respective genres and does THAT mean they are not notable? of course not. The same rule applies here. TruthCrusader 06:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sigh. So much verbiage, so little sense. I mean, "legitimate"? Since I didn't use that term nor any synonym thereof, I'm trying to imagine what it's supposed to mean. I certainly wasn't arguing that the public-radio station hosting the show was illegimate -- which would entail, I dunno, maybe a band of totebag-carrying latte-drinkers skulking through the woods, secretly broadcasting bootleg Bob Edwards tapes or something. --Calton | Talk 20:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete, and Speedy if possible. nn program with nn hosts with nn content. Most of this entry is unsubstantiated and unverified, with much of the rest being inherently contrary to WP:POV. The section on "Other Appearances" is simply listcruft. Agent 86 07:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails Google test miserably. - Andre Engels 08:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unextraordinary local radio station. Here we are now, entertain us! -- GWO
  • Delete, not notable, not reliable and not worth reading (unless you are obliged to in order to vote here naturally). - Motor (talk) 11:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • We're supposed to be reading the articles first. Uh-oh. -- GWO
  • Delete Local radio programs are almost always non-notable, and this one is no exception (in addition to failing the Google test). -- Kicking222 11:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Delete. Do Not Keep. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete to minor and local to be classed as notable. Imagine if we had every single local radio show that had a small fanbase in here. Ydam 12:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge any verifiable, useful bits into Raven Radio in order to make that article more complete. youngamerican (talk) 15:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I would go with delete over keep, though. youngamerican (talk) 14:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. To the closing admin, let me further clarify: If it is close to a "delete," do not let my merge through it to a no consensus. I would rather see a delete than a default keep from no consensus. youngamerican (talk) 23:14, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per youngamerican. Notability hasn't been asserted, but radio exists and is a good place to put this information. -- ReyBrujo 16:53, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. This page may not be the most informational on Wikipedia, but it does meet the polices. It is a real show on a real radio station and if someone wants information on it, where are they going to go? Just because it doesn't show up on Google means nothing. If you google search "Ricahrd Larry Rusk," you don't get anything. Although that man ran the biggest underground drug operation in the state of Texas known to this day. He was eventually gunned down by the FBI. Just because you can't find his name on google means that his operation wasn't notable? No, it doesn't mean anything. Same thing here. The "Other Appearances" was meant to be intertaining and not taken seriously. Anyone who knows this show is obviously from Sitka or surrounding small communities and will un-doubtedly know that those people never were on the show. We also can be fairly certain that the only people who are reading this or the article are people who know the show because...who else would care? The pictures are there to represent the light-heartedness of the program and its atmosphere, not to make it look sophistocated. But what it all boils down to is: There are three policies plus the copyright policy. This page meets all of them. It has a neutral POV, the information about the show is viable information, its obviously not original research, and what copyright could it possibly be breaking? There is unlimited space on the internet. Its not stealing anything away from you. So why not let it stay?--Dnomyar 7:13, 8 June 2006.
    • Because it doensn't meet the slightest standard of importance or encyclopedic merit? Because it's, in fact, trying to steal -- host space, bandwidth, and most importantly, reputation by association.
    • It is a real show on a real radio station ... My mobile phone, my desk calendar, and my box of Kirkland brand Household Surface Wipes on my office desk are equally real, and they're not getting articles, either.
    • ...if someone wants information on it, where are they going to go? Wikipedia not being a webhost, not here. If you have no money (and if you're in public radio, that's a given), try MySpace.
    • Your "Ricahrd Larry Rusk" argument is particularly amusing -- yeah, such an article would be deleted since there's no proof he exists other than your say-so. Besides, I'm not following the logical chain here: because an unprovable subject doesn't have an article, yours should?
    • its obviously not original research Two untruths in one clause: no, it's not "obviously" or even debatably -- "not original research" -- it doesn't have a single reference, not even the bog-standard MySpace page every garage band has.
    • The pictures are there to represent the light-heartedness of the program and its atmosphere, not to make it look sophistocated. Pictures should added visual information to an article -- I hardly think a radio show requires pictures -- especially those that drive home the point that the whole enterprise is Amateur Night in Dixie. I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest the actual reason for the photos has more to do with ego than illustration, and to which I say, see the above reference to MySpace. --Calton | Talk 23:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --Haham hanuka 07:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge If the station merits an article, their shows should be a part of it unless the shows merit their own articles. Here, they don't, so voted merge. --Davidstrauss 07:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it is essentially fancruft for people who listen to the show. No one else could possibly care. Aguerriero (talk) 17:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I dont give a damn about particle physics but that doesn't mean it should be blanked from Wiki. This article meets all the requirements, as stated above, there is NO reason to delete it SOLEY based on nn. TruthCrusader 18:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Huh, your original spittle-flecked argument above relied on some form notability -- no matter how tiny -- and now suddenly it's not important? Try to keep your stories straight, okay? --Calton | Talk 23:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let's try to remember to be CIVIL, people. Agent 86 08:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. (or very weak merge) ... I live in a city with ~9,000 people. Nothing on the radio stations or local cable access is particularly noteworthy enough to include. --Kunzite 21:53, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Stupid_and_contagious&oldid=1138802108"