Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Woody 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. MBisanz ^talk 23:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Woody Show[edit]

Delete nothing more than (perhaps) local notability shown, sourced of course to its own site. It is written so poorly and with a spammy nature, that it is more of a blog than an article, and even were this show notable, this article would not be the starting point for writing an article on it. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:08, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for non-notability. Carlos, I hope you like the article a little better now; it was so full of trivia that it was embarrassing to the Wikipedia project. Drmies (talk) 03:53, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
REPOST This is so ridiculous, first of all their is no such thing as not being notable enough for WIKI, and even if there were, no one made anybody commenting in this post the judge of it. Secondly, an article can and should be created for the Woody Show if any being out there believes it should be. However the writer or writers should do their best to have a well cited and as objective as possible outlook on the subject they are covering. It is up to others to help edit the writing to make it fit these guidelines, and not just delete it from some unelected and undeserved position which decides what subjects are notable enough for WIKI. THECON (talk) 03:53, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for effort, but as you note, still not-notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:20, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right on. Drmies (talk) 04:41, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:02, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I say keep. We obviously don't need to make it as extensive as the page as been in the past, but a little blurb on the show and the people on the show would benefit WP. The people on the show have been in radio for years, and thousands of listeners would make it relatively notable. If we find some decent sources, I think this could be a nice small addition to WP. I have been seeing issues, however, with references to radio: there are very few. For instance, I have been trying to do work on WKQX, which has been around for over 15 years, but with little sources referring to its history. Sometimes a lack of sources does not diminish notability. However, in accordance with WP guidelines, we better find some neutral sources on the subject. Angryapathy (talk) 17:17, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:28, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:28, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The coverage, such as it is, does not appear to demonstrate encyclopedic notability. (This is not a forward looking person, WIKI HAS THE ABILITY TO BE AN ENCYCLOPEDIA ON EVERYBODY AND EVERYTHING, it is not an encyclopedia collection with a limited size like years ago. THE FUTURE IS WIKI WHICH INCLUDES EVERYBODY AND EVERYTHING. People who do not understand this are looking to far behind, and not embracing what is ahead. SO PLEASE REPOST THE WOODY SHOW PAGE, AND ANYTHING ELSE PEOPLE OF THE WORLD WANT TO POST!) Eluchil404 (talk) 22:26, 29 March 2009 (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.