Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jargon of the Neal Boortz 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 delete, especially in light of the copyright problems, which are not addressed by any of the keep arguments. One entry not being from the website does not make the rest of the material not a copyright violation. --Core desat 07:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jargon of the Neal Boortz Show[edit]

As you might expect by the name of the article, the only source to publish jargon of the Neal Boortz Show is the Neal Boortz Show. Wikipedia does not have "experts" to judge whether something is important and leaves that up to independent relialbe sources. Jargon of the Neal Boortz Show has not received enough coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the Neal Boortz Show to develop an attributable article on the topic. The topic fails WP:N. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 20:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's taken verbatim off of his website, so Wikipedia doesn't really need to host this. I'm not much in to jargon for radio shows, comic strips, and anything else which is consumed daily, becuase if you're a fan, you'll figure it out. If you listen to Rush Limbaugh for more than a few minutes, do you need Wikipedia to explain "megadittoes"? Mandsford 21:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No RS, crufty, and a direct C/P from here, presenting copyvio problems. A blurb/mention with some examples in the main article about the show is more than sufficient. Further, a lot of the items on the list are not original to Boortz anyway. LaMenta3 21:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator --Childzy ¤ Talk 22:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Thanks for the heads up Jreferee. Obviously I'm going to vote keep since I created it. However, please allow me a few moments to explain why and ask some questions. 1) The entries were in the main article but since the article is trying to achieve GA status, it was suggested that it be spun off in it's own article similar to another GA article and how it handles it (see Jargon of The Rush Limbaugh Show as the example). 2) Contrary to what Mandsford says, it is not taken verbatim. The entry is new and has not been given time to be developed and improved upon. Some entries are verbatim, but are sourced as such. Given time, this will be improved. 3) As far as sources, please see #2. This article has not been given the time to be developed with further sources gathered. One entry is not from Boortz, and the others, in time will be further sourced as well. Just to meet criteria for the GA, as mentioned in #1, it was speedily built to remove the entries from the main article, but would continue to be developed and improved upon thus providing more of a complete picture of the main article (Neal Boortz). 4) It was mentioned that this is not needed, however, as pointed out in #1, another GA article does this very same thing and yet it's considered a well covered article. I sometimes become confused as to why some editors in Wiki allow the same thing in one place, however, other editors will not allow the same thing in another place. Granted I'm still new and learning, but this seems inconsistent and confusing. 5) A response to LaMenta...the article is not saying these are unique to Boortz, but over the years he has popularized them and introduced many other commentators with the terms thus increasing the usage. 6) Last point/question, if every article that is created is this quickly deleted, how are they supposed to be developed and improved upon? Though it may sting a bit to have this deleted, I can walk away from this and not make it an issue, but still I would like to know why the quick decision to delete. If you all could answer the questions above, I would be obliged. I was going to further develop and source the article, but now I'm a bit gun shy because to do so then have you delete it would be in vain. Kind regards --Maniwar (talk) 03:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What is notable about this subject? Is each entry going to be referenced? And no, the guy's own web page is not suitable for reference. Is the jargon used on Boortz' radio show discussed in newspapers or magazines? The object of Wikipedia is not to say everything about everything. This is pure fanboy stuff. MarkBul 05:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Without passing too much of a judgement on the artistic merits of these utterances (they have none) or the wittiness thereof (they have none), I honestly do not see any value in their presence as an article. Aficionados can apparently find them in the utterers own homepage, which appears to be the major source of the article. The rest of us could not care less, I'm willing to wager. --Agamemnon2 06:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia really doesn't need to duplicate a list of insider jargon found on the website of some obscure show. This might even be a copyright violation. JIP | Talk 08:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this is not "some obscure show". It is a highly rated radio show and the main article is certainly notable. Given some time, I am certain that secondary sources could be found (many object to these witty utterances and I remember reading about these objections). That being said, I can see the way this prod vote is going, so I won't waste my time with a "Keep" vote. I would suggest that it be moved to Maniwar's user space so he can work on improving it. Ursasapien (talk) 09:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I do have some concerns about how useful this is in Wikipedia and just duplicating Boortz's site. I think Maniwar did an excellent job summarizing in the main article, so his/her success there decreases the need for this article. However, if external sources can be found.. I say give it a chance. Morphh ^(talk) 14:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Morphh. --Wynler | Talk 14:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Morphh. --Jerm (^Talk/ _Contrib) 00:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. With a very few exceptions, these terms are not notable. They are mostly unsourced, and the main source we've got is a list of jargon on the Boortz website. The comparison to Jargon of The Rush Limbaugh Show is not entirely valid: Limbaugh is much better known and the material in that article is all sourced at least to a show in which he uttered the term. However even that article has serious problems in that the definitions of the terms are all original research. Without 3rd-party sourcs for these terms this will have the same problems. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The definitions of these terms are not original research, as the terms are defined by the author himself. It would be great to trace back to the first use of these terms in the transcripts of the "Boortz Show" but if all that is required is an example of his using the term, we could source nearly every term by examining any given week of transcripts. Neal uses all these terms a lot. Ursasapien (talk) 06:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment per the article, Boortz is the #6th talk show host in America; he is considered one of the "Most Powerful & Influential People in Georgia" and has been given a NAB Marconi Radio Awards as well as a "Georgia Radio Hall of Fame 2007 Career Achievement Award" would highly refute the claim that it's non notable. Just because Will Beback has not heard of him, does not dispel the truth. When this article was started and nominated for deletion, it was because there were ony two sources, however, as you can see, this article now has fifteen sources and growing. Hopefully this will dispel the concern. --Maniwar (talk) 20:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. I'm a huge Boortz fan! However, many of these words are jargon from other topics as well. Even if they were unique, it can be mentioned in the main article as part of a section, or a section itself about the show. It clearly lacks notability to be included in it's own article and on the top it's not encyclopedic content. --Skywolf ^talk/_contribs 03:31, 15 September 2007 (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.