Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cort and Fatboy

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 delete. Consensus is fairly clear. Note the last two !votes were added by the same IP at the same time. Courcelles 11:45, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cort and Fatboy[edit]

Cort and Fatboy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Relisting per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 March 18. I abstain. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:53, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been substantially revised since an initial deletion in February of 2011. It now contains sources from several wide-circulation newspapers including the Oregonian, in addition to a story from the Associated Press. The show is nationally-recognized and more than worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia. Stumptowner (talk) 10:18, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as subject as a podcast lacks the in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources required to meet the notability standard. Criteria #1 of WP:WEB begins: "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." (emphasis mine) There are a couple of sources here about the duo's hosting of movie and TV screenings, including that oft-mentioned AP story where they're third or fourth billed in a story about fans hosting screenings of the Lost finale, but none in-depth about their show itself. - Dravecky (talk) 11:40, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: The lack of URLs in most of the references made it initially more difficult to analyze the sourcing or for a reader to easily verify the claims made in the article. I've remedied that, where possible. In doing so, I've found that the two stories in The Oregonian mention Cort and Fatboy only in passing. The first story is in-depth about another show host with "KUFO's afternoon hosts, Cort and Fatboy, also were let go Friday." the only mention of the duo in the piece. The second story talks about a local Lebowski Fest and only briefly mentions Cort and Fatboy as hosts. - Dravecky (talk) 11:56, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: A mention is not sufficient to establish notability, even in a notable publication. The Business Week article says they hosted a Lost finale party but does not discuss the program in any way. - Dravecky (talk) 03:07, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • They are notable enough to be mentioned, so they are notable. Other reliable sources speak of them as well, for various reasons. Dream Focus 03:55, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Not just local news coverage. Proven---BabbaQ (talk) 14:19, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The sources are trivial coverage at best. Jarkeld (talk) 23:48, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No the sources are OK. No reason for deletion anyway.--BabbaQ (talk) 09:52, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 1. Cascadia.FM and cortandfatboy links are not appropriate as they are 1st person (the subject or their primary host). Other "references" consist of open blog entries, passing mentions to the fact that they were unceremoniously booted out, and other unreliable sources. The claimed buisnessweek piece is an Associated Press report so it can show up in 40 different locations with the exact same wording, but doesn't substantially talk about the article in principle.Hasteur (talk) 15:38, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Still, not in my opinion a reason for deletion.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:46, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
BabbaQ, please link to the Policy document supporting your opinion. Otherwise all your opinion is WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:IDHT Hasteur (talk) 18:59, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:PEOPLE states: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." These guys are thus notable. Having a radio program for years is what they are notable for, not their website. One of the deletes mentions the guidelines for webpages for reasons unknown. These guys get coverage for their radio show, web show, themselves, and their parties. A major city newspaper covers their events regularly. They are seen as notable enough that Wired magazine even mentions them. The guideline for entertainers and other people also states "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". The fact that a major magazine as well as others mention them at all, counts towards their notability. Dream Focus 20:02, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The article is about the show, not the two people. WP:PEOPLE does not apply. Jarkeld (talk) 20:06, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The two people are the show, so its the same thing in this case. Dream Focus 21:01, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." (even assuming that WP:PEOPLE were the relevant criteria) HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:48, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: little evidence of depth of third-party coverage, particularly beyond local/routine coverage. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:48, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Mentions do not equal coverage   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 00:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Hats.com blog interviews Bobby Fatboy Roberts and discusses show as well as hats. [2] Kudiew 19:13, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I changed your sig to be your name not mine. I think that's what you wanted it to look like. Dream Focus 01:17, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Cinematical has an extensive interview with Bobby Fatboy Roberts about his music remix albums [3] 19:13, 7 April 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.51.70.18 (talk)
Are you the same guy from above? Dream Focus 01:17, 8 April 2011 (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/Cort_and_Fatboy&oldid=1140753424"