Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Race to the Right

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. - Bobet 10:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Race to the Right[edit]

also Race to the Right/PastShows subpage


A supplemental AfD to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ThePete. This is a local talk radio show in Minnesota, in the United States. Aside from references on <100 blogs and other non-WP:RS qualifying sites, I can find no references, RS, or other way to establish verifiability about this. The entire article is drawn from the primary sources of the show and staff, and there is no notability to warrant inclusion in Wikipedia that I can see. Recommend deletion. · XP · 15:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Verification beyond blogs can be found at the station's website, 1450knis.com. Re: notability, I have found quite a few pages that deal with items within the media (shows, etc) and works towards completing the comprehensiveness of an encyclopedia that is not limiting by "page count". This is consistent with Wikipedia projects that look to have all state legislators in Wikipedia more for comprehensiveness than for notability. Re: primary sources, almost all of the information has been either on the air, on the hosts blogs, on the station's website or on the show's website, thus, Wikipedia is not the original source. Recommend against deletion.tony garcia 17:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Except for this, a primary source of your radio station/show isn't sufficient. If other sources and media aren't talking about the show, it hasn't demonstrated notability to warrant inclusion. · XP · 20:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I live in MN, but have never heard of it (not a reason for deletion). I think tony garcia might have provided info before expressing an opinion given that he is an employee of the station. CMacMillan 20:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    In which case, VAIN/AUTO apply too. · XP · 20:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Curious...do you live in St Cloud?--tony garcia 20:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can see the writing on the wall. This is a losing battle AND there will be very little guidance. I hope the consistency then is applied throught mid-market radio shows, stations, etc...that each of those, unless they are 'notable' outside of their town, are deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mnyakko (talk • contribs) 02:04, 17 October 2006

Comment - Sorry, I seldom reply to stuff like this, but I felt the need in this case. You can see the writing on the wall, can you? And you can argue about the shortcomings of Wikipedia, and your perceived lack of guidance. How about using that energy to provide the information you've been directed to time and time again. Reference published market share charts. How about licensing documentation? You think it's notable in St. Cloud, does anyone else? Has that been established? Covered in referential media? If you feel strongly about this, then stop pointing at us and do something about it. CMacMillan 19:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment per CMacMillan, the best thing you can do here find some reliable sources that have covered this show and provide them here. Also, nobody is arguing that the article on the station should be deleted, just the show and associated biographical articles. There is pretty strong precedent that verifiable radio stations/TV stations should get an article... just not their staff and individual shows.--Isotope23 20:08, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is the standard of source actually "Reference published market share charts" or "licensing documentation"? Please point me in the direction for free charts of those nature, CMacMillan, because the only ones I know of require subcription. Seriously, is that the standard to be learned here?--tony garcia 20:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see. Books aren't either, but they're referenced regularly. Let me help, then. Your station is one of 38 in your market. You are tied for 14th out of the 35 measured stations with an AQH share of 2.4, down from a Fall '05 measurement of 3.1 when you tied for 12th (Arbitron, Spring '06). Your show was not rated. You are available on the web, popular with limited political blogs, and I pointedly did not express a recommendation for Keep or Delete. CMacMillan 22:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, local radio talk show, no demonstrated notability.--Isotope23 20:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I conced the questionability of the archive of show topics. I saw something similar and thought "that's a great idea" but found no guidelines or policies one way or the other. After typing it I realized what a space hog it is for such little contribution to the encyclopedic benefit of comprehensiveness. I will copy it instead to my user page for my own purposes in case it is decided the subpage should go. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mnyakko (talk • contribs) 02:04, 17 October 2006
  • Comment, good idea... and if you've seen this elsewhere I'd like to know where. Really no article should be using a subpage to archive their shows.--Isotope23 16:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I realized that most of the places I have seen such examples are those Wikias.--tony garcia 20:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: What's the syntax again to list all subpages under a given parent, to check for others...? · XP · 21:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have been aware of the concerns (mostly relating to conflicts of interest) in the GUIDELINES regarding "Vanity". The truth is that I started a while ago by adding the KNSI page. Considering that most of the media in St Cloud, MN is absent I followed the model of similar format stations in Minneapolis and started to write articles about the St Cloud live shows. First was the top rated show and then our show. For some reason Dan Ochsners was deleted but this one was not. I have since been building on it in as much of a NPOV as I could. And, you have to admit that had I not said so elsewhere you would have had difficulty realizing that the articles were originated by the subject. Which leads me to the following:

    If you have published elsewhere on a subject, we welcome you to contribute to articles on the subject for Wikipedia. However, every Wikipedia article is expected to cover its subject in a neutral, fair, and comprehensive way in order to advance knowledge of the subject as a whole.[1]

    Can you honestly say that this is not "neutral, fair, and comprehensive"? Is it or is it not advancing knowledge of the subject?

Verifiability...Everything in the articles has been on the air, on the station's website, on the personal blogs or on the show's websites. I take it from the myopic prism used to push to delete everything regarding this station's shows and hosts that this is not sufficient for 'verifiability'...however as of yet noone has offered anything as a response. In other words, there is no guidance whatsoever from the veteran editors...just a 'delete, we're right, no exception' mentality.

When I have a question about ANYTHING I check Wikipedia first. I have never come up empty...except when dealing with matters within St Cloud. While the policy of "notability" and "verifiable" are very good standards, there seems to be a conflict with that in some of the projects I have seen on Wikipedia (e.g. requesting pages for all state legislators, articles completing timelines). These projects imply a desire of comprehensiveness to some degree. Those things said, these articles seem to fall into line with the comprehensive drive of other projects. Verifiability? Yes, difficult. So, to me, it seems the question here calls for a balance between Verfiability and/or Notability vs Comprehensive and leading resource. And one more point to the idea of Comprehensive Resource: many other Wikias also imply a similar drive...things like Lyrics library, etc. Notability? Come live in St Cloud and see if KNSI and their local talent are not notable? What is comforting in Wikipedia (as a resource) is that it seems practicaly anything of public knowledge is able to be found. The fact that a common person within a certain field WOULD likely search for a topic, in my interpretation of notability, is the driving philosophy behind 'notability'. If I am wrong, then I ask for Rulings that demonstrate this error of interpretation.tony garcia 02:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment second Keep opinion by same editor stricken. Please only state Keep or Delete once a discussion. It is bad wiki-etiquette to do otherwise. Per verifiability, information has to be verifiable from a reliable source to appear on Wikipedia; i.e. it has to be possible that it can be vetted for accuracy. Something that happens "on air" on a radio show is not going to pass WP:V unless there is a transcript, archived program, etc that is readily available for people to verify. Blogs are generally considered by many editors to not be a reliable source because they are self-published and usually have no external checks on accuracy. A station's website may be seen as a reliable source, or may not because it is a primary source and may not be neutral. Personally I opined delete because I don't see any evidence of greater notability. It has nothing to do with the size of the station or the size of St. Cloud... I live in a much bigger city and I would readily opine delete for any local radio programming in my city (including the shows I listen to frequently) unless it could be demonstrated that multiple, verifiable, external sources exist and have been devoted to the show (newspapers, nationally circulated magazines, coverage by non-local news organizations on television or the web). I just don't see that here.--Isotope23 16:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment sorry about the second Keep. Being new to actually participating in discussions I thought those were to identify the position (like at political conventions when someone has to identify if they are "pro" or "con" for a resolution before speaking) and as I read more of the procedures I understand they are actually the method of voting.--tony garcia 20:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable and unverified. All information comes from the station's own website, the program, and the producers' blogs, which are primary sources and therefore not useful (per Wikipedia policy) in establishing either notability or verifiability. It has to come from somewhere else, from a trustworthy source (e.g. not a blogger) who is not related to the program. --Charlene.fic 12:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why would a blogger not be a cretable source according to Wiki, yet a creditable source according to CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, and other news orginizations on multiple ocassions? Wiki's deffition of blogger includes this statement: The impact of this story gave greater credibility to blogs as a medium of news dissemination. Though often seen as partisan gossips, bloggers sometimes lead the way in bringing key information to public light, with mainstream media having to follow their lead. More often, however, news blogs tend to react to material already published by the mainstream media. Would it not stand to reason that Blogs can be used as trustworthy sources?Pete Arnold 17:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I can't comment on CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, etc. as I don't work for any of those companies. They have their own views on blogging... and besides, they are news media. Wikipedia is not, it is an encyclopedia. Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Self-published sources as secondary sources guideline is pretty clear when it states "...personal websites, blogs, and other self-published or vanity publications should not be used as secondary sources." They simply are not a reliable source. blogs might be on the bleeding edge of information dissemination, but Wikipedia is a reactive media, not a proactive media. It is an encyclopedia, not a news site; the purpose is not to "disseminate news". If a blog is the primary or only source for information, it can't be seen as a reliable source. If a blog is simply reprinting what has been said elsewhere, then Wikipedia should be using the source feeding the blog (provided it is a reliable source of course) and not the blog. Blogs generally have huge verifiability & POV problems.--Isotope23 19:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Ambiguous nature of Wiki's rules not only allows editors to make judgement calls, but allows preferencial treatment of some articles, and exclusion of others based on editorial opinion. If rules are going to be cited as criteria to be meet inorder to be allouable in Wiki, then Ambiguous or not, of something meets those criteria, it would be expected to be kept. Race to the Right meets the notability guidelines by having 1. A large fan base and 2. name recoginition. The entires on the contributiers to Race to the Right (Tony Garcia and Pete Arnold) show what makes Race to the Right what it is. Pete Arnold 20:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't think it has been demonstrated that the radio show has a large fan base or name recognition. All you've provided is the contention that the personal blog of the show's host gets 360 or so hits a week, which isn't verifiable to begin with, and doesn't establish the fan base of the radio show. Name recognition has also not been established. Where is the evidence of that? Finally, even if notability is verifiably proven for the show, Tony Garcia & Pete Arnold are not notable by association. They both need to meet the WP:BIO guidelines or a very copelling reason needs to be given to ignore the guidelines in this case. This has not been done at this point. It's also interesting to note that the only Keep opinions rendered so far are by people associated with the show.--Isotope23 00:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I just wanted to point out that (a) my intention for authoring this page has been clear throughout the discussions on this and the related afd: to enhance Wikipedia's comprehensiveness of public figures, etc. and (b) WP:IAR, which I think is applicable on this article.--tony garcia 20:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. My name is Derek, and I listen to this show in ocasionally St. Cloud. I think Isotope sounds like he realy wants this gone even though Race to the right is on the air and does have an audience. I am also insulted by the thought of St. cloud being a small town. If short articles in wikipedia exist for other radio shows, there is no reason for this one to be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.13.234.55 (talk • contribs) 15:10, 19 October 2006 — 70.13.234.55 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete this article seems to be a person just promoting himself. The popularity of the show is not only unverifiable, but is actually diminished in my view by the length of the article. A national syndicated radio host who is actually 'popular', Sean Hannity, has an entry roughly similar in size to a sunday afternoon radio show on an AM station in a small market in a small market state. I don't believe it contributes to wikipedia in a meaningful way. --Wausau9 12:00, 19 October 2006 — Wasau9 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Self-worship and promotion? "...have it contribute to wikipedia in a more substantial way"--I think this is what is being referred to on [WP:PA] by "avoid personalizing them and try to minimize unnecessarily antagonistic comments." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mnyakko (talk • contribs) 20:24, 19 October 2006
  • Delete Appears to be of local interest only, and I'm not convinced it's notable. If kept it should be slimmed down so it sounds less like a family history. Wiki is not Google; the fact that something exists somewhere doesn't necessarily mean it should be noted here. - Corporal Tunnel 02:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Corporal, thanks for the suggestion. I trimmed it up a bit, hope that helps.--Tony 16:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Yes, as difficult as this may be to understand, basic Wikipedia policies apply to this show as well, and there are still no WP:RS in the article as of right now. Sandstein 20:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, lots of noise but still no reliable sources. Add some and we'll talk. Vectro 04:15, 24 October 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/Race_to_the_Right&oldid=1138274093"