Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bubba the Love Sponge Show

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 was Merge into one article. Divided opinions, but there is (narrow) consensus that this is at least not worth two articles, so a merger into whichever is the more notable topic - to be determined through further discussion if needed - is the most consensual outcome. Sandstein 19:47, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bubba the Love Sponge Show

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Also nominating the following related pages, which cover much the same subject:

Marginal notability, conflict of interest, promotional. Article was referred to WP:COIN. Overall, an ad for a shock-jock radio show. There are a few press references only because the person behind the show does things to get attention. Otherwise, not notable. Heavy edit warring, first by blocked user BRNCopyright (talk · contribs), then by anons. John Nagle (talk) 18:50, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment John Nagle, I think that since you are the nominator, your nomination counts as your one delete !vote, and for this reason I have struck your additional !vote above. Per WP:AFD, "Nomination already implies that the nominator recommends deletion (unless indicated otherwise), and nominators should refrain from repeating this recommendation on a separate bulleted line." Everymorning (talk) 19:13, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. Edited nomination to reflect that, and removed bulleted vote. John Nagle (talk) 19:45, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 19:13, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as per @John Nagle rationale. Quis separabit? 20:19, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: While I do not dispute the article is on the promotional side and needs some sources (and some work), it is not marginally notable. The show is nationally syndicated, previously aired on Sirius XM, and there's...uh...this. Google searches of "Bubba the Love Sponge", "Bubba the Love Sponge Show", and "Todd Clem" (Bubba's real name) bring up plenty of references to the show and to the person. There is, of course, the pig incident, that drew the highest fine in FCC history. So, yeah, there is plenty of notability and references. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:19, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Edit-warring and blocked users (and anons) are not criteria for deleting an article....just FYI. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:22, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Further Comment: I checked the page and the edit-warring I seen was between an anon and User:Nagle. Nagle repeatedly removed sourced content then improperly warned the anon user for those reverting Nagle's edits. I believe the edit-warring portion of this AfD should be struck as is incorrect. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:39, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, the edit warring I was addressing was between BRNCopyright (talk · contribs) and Kharkiv07 (talk · contribs) in mid-August which went to 10 rounds before BRNCopyright was blocked. I've been removing the channel guide which an anon keeps inserting, per WP:NOTRADIOGUIDE. See Talk:Bubba the Love Sponge Show#Removing channel guide type info, to which the anon never responded. But that's not the AfD issue. The problem is that the article subject is known mostly through their own PR efforts, or is "famous for being famous". That doesn't pass WP:CREATIVE. WP:BIO distinguishes between "worthy of notice", vs. "famous" or "popular". This is clearly the latter. In the presence of promotional activity, the notability guidelines should be strictly interpreted. John Nagle (talk) 22:30, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The edits regarding the "radio guide" weren't promotional from the show, though. AllAccess and RadioInsight are radio station news websites. Be it format changes, programming changes, whatever, you will find it there. They are considered highly reliable sources in radio station articles. Jacksonville.com is actually the website of The Florida Times-Union. Further reliable sources include Stltoday.com (St. Louis Post-Dispatch) and Ocala.com (Ocala Star Banner). The anon's reverts aside, these are reliable sources and not a list of OR information. This is carefully sourced content.

If we do go on the "famous for being famous" line, then we would be removing Paris Hilton, the Kardashians, and Howard Stern from Wikipedia too. The first two are famous for being famous, the second is famous for being a shock-jock...just like BTLS. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:42, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, in my defense, we weren't edit warring, it was all clearly vandalism. Just take a look. Kharkiv07 (T) 23:51, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there's more edit warring in the history, but that's not a reason for deletion--it's a reason for caution, though. If I can elaborate on recent events, that IP reverting the nominator, that's disruptive editing: Nagle gave a reason, the IP didn't, and if they continue they'll be blocked. If I can elaborate on past events, a big problem is the "work" done by Tparadiofan, especially this edit, which reinserts complete and utter bullshit, fan trivia, nonsense, unverified content, MOS-violations, and a bunch of BLP violations to boot. I don't think much of that content is in the current version, fortunately. Clearly Tparadiofan thinks that Wikipedia is some kind of fan site, where the kind of language you hear on talk radio is acceptable. It is not.
I don't have an opinion on whether this article should be kept or not. That's a matter of GNG and of relevant guidelines--Neutralhomer knows those better than me. But the nominator has a point with their NOTRADIOGUIDE, for instance. Finally, that talk page is awfully empty, except for one note by Nagle. Drmies (talk) 22:32, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, merge Bubbe the Love Sponge into the radio show article. Drmies (talk) 22:36, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:56, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:57, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Swarm ♠ 22:30, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as per Bubba Clem and the Bubba Radio Network. We vote delete. Many times, over the years, we have attempted to improve this page with details and data about the man and show, we used Howard Sterns pages as reference when editing. Things his page gets away with, every time we were shot down with "this is promotion" or "im a weani nerd who thinks I know it all" ANYTHING written about us ANYWHERE is by definition PROMOTION, even though you seem to only care about defaming the man and the show. We vote for deletion. We want nothing to do with wikipedia any longer. If you cannot control some snot noised nerd editing our page because he thinks he knows us better then we do, then this clearly isnt a venue we need to be a part of. Or just keep it up as is, longer you defame us the stronger our case will be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BRNCopyright2 (talk • contribs) 04:30, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
— BRNCopyright2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Fortunately for the world of knowledge, the BRN doesn't get a vote per WP:COI. True CRaysball | ^#RaysUp 00:47, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per Neutralhomer. True CRaysball | ^#RaysUp 06:36, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Neutralhomer summarizes the case well. The subject has received sufficient press coverage (regardless of whether it's positive or negative) to warrant him getting his own article. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 01:39, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all to one article and leave it be. Guy (Help!) 10:03, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:17, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Keep - One article is only needed. There are reliable sources and seems pretty notable to me... - Pmedema (talk) 13:31, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as this is likely best at his article and there's not much for more of a separate article. SwisterTwister talk 04:44, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per JzG - Not enough notability for a stand-alone article.

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.