Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frosty, Heidi & Frank
- 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. The fact that this article remains unsourced, that there is no independent, reliable verification of the information included (despite the author's excellent attempt at finding sources), leads to the conclusion that in this case the consensus is to delete. I should add, incidently, that the wording of the policy Wikipedia:Verifiability states "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true" -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Frosty, Heidi & Frank[edit]
- Frosty, Heidi & Frank (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Tagged as having no sources for more than two years; recent BLP problems - article causes more trouble than it is worth - likely self-promotional? Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:22, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- delete m:eventualism just doesn't work with BLP-related articles, and two years is enough to demonstrate it probably won't be fixed, and if fixed will almost certainly not be maintained. Wikipedia has to start admitting its framework can't handle and adequately maintain certain things without undue and unfair risk to the subject.--Scott Mac 12:17, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It has been more than two years. Frosty Stilwell, Frank Kramer, and Heidi Hamilton were created in August 2005.
The real problem here is the usual one with talk radio programme hosts: People listen to the shows and think that everything said on air is a biographical/historical fact, and blithely and without discrimination add it to Wikipedia. Of course, the fact that these things are said on air somewhat undermines the risk-to-the-subject argument. The more important consideration is the endemic lack of any attempt at all on the parts of some editors to make content verifiable, as, sadly, exemplified by these edits by a de-prodder. Where's the source for all of that analysis and personal opinion, for example? Who knows. Proper Noun (talk · contribs) doesn't tell us. That is the problem. Years of bad writing and a bad approach to writing, where people take what went before as a guide to how writing should be done. And if zapping five years' worth of unverifiable contributions and starting again with sources in hand fixes it, that's a good thing.
Unfortunately, some searching doesn't turn up much in the way of sources, written by identifiable people with the purpose of factual accuracy, from which it would be possible to do that. I can find sources mentioning this as one show as one of a number of shows hosted on a radio station (example) or discussing primarily the radio station rather than the shows (example), and some odds and ends (example), but nothing to support anything like a history of the show and its hosts as presented here. I cannot find anything even remotely supporting Proper Noun's content. Uncle G (talk) 15:49, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It has been more than two years. Frosty Stilwell, Frank Kramer, and Heidi Hamilton were created in August 2005.
- Comment It is virtually impossible to provide a reference for comments made on the air. If this article is deleted because of that issue then all articles about radio shows that rely on on-air comments should be deleted. I have no vested interest in whether this article is kept or deleted. As a long time editor of this article and listener of the show my only interest has been to ensure that the article contains factual content. Dr. Morbius (talk) 20:31, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. The assertion that information is unverifiable after the information is spoken directly by the subject is pure guesswork. If the true goal is to verify spoken information, then every similar radio wiki should be put under such scrutiny. And the very nature of Criticism or Controversy style topics is about opinion, and I added it only in response to the speculative guess the page is self-promotional and also being outdated by two years, which was a contradiction of statements. And I would further posit: Is it not just personal opinion to say "article causes more trouble than it is worth"? The very existence of this deletion discussion is mounted firmly on personal opinion and guessing. User:ProperNoun 17:20, 11 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Proper Noun (talk • contribs) [reply]
- If information is not verifiable, it must be excluded from Wikipedia. That goes for on-air information. That may mean there is less info on radio shows, but that the way it goes.--Scott Mac 20:36, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Absolutely agreed. This sort of thing is particularly acute when we have a "sexy" and "chatty" and "humorous" program like this. Kayfabe (a concept in wrestling but with wider application in my view) is worthwhile reading. As a relevant example for this particular article, consider this unsourced claim: "Hamilton was born and raised in Terre Haute, Indiana where she grew up with an older brother in a house their family bought that was built for and previously lived in by midgets." There is absolutely no reason to chastise or be critical of these performers for putting forth such things, but also absolutely no reason to believe it is actually true. A tall attractive blonde (why do I get the feeling I will be quoted on the radio about this tomorrow morning?) who grew up in a house built for midgets is a humorous concept for a radio program - but it is not reliable information for an encyclopedia.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:00, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I do see an issue concerning radio shows that are more well known than others such as Rush Limbaugh or Howard Stern. It wouldn't surprise me if just about everything Howard Stern has talked about isn't recorded somewhere. Youtube has a great deal of content that fans have recorded and posted. Does that mean that articles about popular radio shows, for which it is possible to provide references for comments in the article, are kept while articles for obscure shows are deleted? If so then I don't see an issue as long as the verifiability standard is applied fairly. Dr. Morbius (talk) 23:31, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You're missing a fairly fundamental point. Not everything said on air in these programs is necessarily true. The standard of verifiability that we, at Wikipedia, are supposed to have is that we use sources that actually have factual accuracy as their goal in the first place, rather than, say, entertainment for radio listeners. It's not about popularity. It's not about fame. It's not about audience figures. It's not even about fairness. Human knowledge is famously uneven, incomplete, lumpy, and unfair. It's about whether a subject has been properly documented, in depth, by identifiable people, with good reputations for fact checking and accuracy, who actually had factual accuracy as their goals, in published works. It's about not being credulous enough to believe that everything said in broadcast entertainment programmes is factual. Louis Lucero II writing in the Daily Trojan and Greg Braxton writing in the Los Angeles Times had factual reportage as their goals, and we can evaluate their reputations for fact checking and accuracy. But a radio personality stating that xyr home was built for midgets in an entertainment programme is not necessarily even trying to state the facts accurately. So it's not acceptable to use such material as a source. That's bad, indiscriminate, credulous, encyclopaedia writing. Uncle G (talk) 00:39, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I perfectly understand what the fundamental point is. The veracity of the statement made on the air is irrelevant the only thing that matters is is it possible to provide a reference for the statement. I don't see why a recording of the individual making the statement is any less valid as a reference than a magazine article or a book or a link to some website that refers to the statement. Dr. Morbius (talk) 19:46, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, you clearly do not understand the point. We're making an encyclopaedia here. Our goal is factual accuracy, which verifiability is our means for achieving (in the absence of the better tools that simply don't work on a wholly open wiki-based project). If you don't get that verifiability involves having sources that are themselves accurate and factual, and aimed directly at that goal, as is clearly evident from your statement that veracity of sources is irrelevant, then you don't understand a very basic thing about Wikipedia. This isn't a jokebook. It's an encyclopaedia. The goal here is facts, not collecting and accruing comic remarks. Uncle G (talk) 15:58, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well then you're making up your own rules because according to this Wikipedia:Verifiability "factual accuracy" doesn't matter. If what you say is true then a whole host of articles need to be deleted starting with all the pseudoscience articles. Dr. Morbius (talk) 20:09, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, you clearly do not understand the point. We're making an encyclopaedia here. Our goal is factual accuracy, which verifiability is our means for achieving (in the absence of the better tools that simply don't work on a wholly open wiki-based project). If you don't get that verifiability involves having sources that are themselves accurate and factual, and aimed directly at that goal, as is clearly evident from your statement that veracity of sources is irrelevant, then you don't understand a very basic thing about Wikipedia. This isn't a jokebook. It's an encyclopaedia. The goal here is facts, not collecting and accruing comic remarks. Uncle G (talk) 15:58, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I perfectly understand what the fundamental point is. The veracity of the statement made on the air is irrelevant the only thing that matters is is it possible to provide a reference for the statement. I don't see why a recording of the individual making the statement is any less valid as a reference than a magazine article or a book or a link to some website that refers to the statement. Dr. Morbius (talk) 19:46, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You're missing a fairly fundamental point. Not everything said on air in these programs is necessarily true. The standard of verifiability that we, at Wikipedia, are supposed to have is that we use sources that actually have factual accuracy as their goal in the first place, rather than, say, entertainment for radio listeners. It's not about popularity. It's not about fame. It's not about audience figures. It's not even about fairness. Human knowledge is famously uneven, incomplete, lumpy, and unfair. It's about whether a subject has been properly documented, in depth, by identifiable people, with good reputations for fact checking and accuracy, who actually had factual accuracy as their goals, in published works. It's about not being credulous enough to believe that everything said in broadcast entertainment programmes is factual. Louis Lucero II writing in the Daily Trojan and Greg Braxton writing in the Los Angeles Times had factual reportage as their goals, and we can evaluate their reputations for fact checking and accuracy. But a radio personality stating that xyr home was built for midgets in an entertainment programme is not necessarily even trying to state the facts accurately. So it's not acceptable to use such material as a source. That's bad, indiscriminate, credulous, encyclopaedia writing. Uncle G (talk) 00:39, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I do see an issue concerning radio shows that are more well known than others such as Rush Limbaugh or Howard Stern. It wouldn't surprise me if just about everything Howard Stern has talked about isn't recorded somewhere. Youtube has a great deal of content that fans have recorded and posted. Does that mean that articles about popular radio shows, for which it is possible to provide references for comments in the article, are kept while articles for obscure shows are deleted? If so then I don't see an issue as long as the verifiability standard is applied fairly. Dr. Morbius (talk) 23:31, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Absolutely agreed. This sort of thing is particularly acute when we have a "sexy" and "chatty" and "humorous" program like this. Kayfabe (a concept in wrestling but with wider application in my view) is worthwhile reading. As a relevant example for this particular article, consider this unsourced claim: "Hamilton was born and raised in Terre Haute, Indiana where she grew up with an older brother in a house their family bought that was built for and previously lived in by midgets." There is absolutely no reason to chastise or be critical of these performers for putting forth such things, but also absolutely no reason to believe it is actually true. A tall attractive blonde (why do I get the feeling I will be quoted on the radio about this tomorrow morning?) who grew up in a house built for midgets is a humorous concept for a radio program - but it is not reliable information for an encyclopedia.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:00, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Verification flows from using a "reliable source" for that information. If you think that on-air banter constitutes a "reliable source" for the factual lives of the presenters, then I put it to you that you're making a genre confusion. It would be akin to sourcing information about prominent politicians from a satirical show. Sure, the source would be verifiable (and it might even be a BBC production), nevertheless it isn't a reliable means of verifying that information.--Scott Mac 21:51, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought the purpose of Wikipedia:Verifiability was to ensure that references for comments made by individuals are provided rather than verifying the veracity of the comments. From my reading of Wikipedia:Verifiability that's what it means to me. Dr. Morbius (talk) 20:30, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Verification flows from using a "reliable source" for that information. If you think that on-air banter constitutes a "reliable source" for the factual lives of the presenters, then I put it to you that you're making a genre confusion. It would be akin to sourcing information about prominent politicians from a satirical show. Sure, the source would be verifiable (and it might even be a BBC production), nevertheless it isn't a reliable means of verifying that information.--Scott Mac 21:51, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Wow, an article I created caught the attention of the big man himself? I feel honored. (Well, ok, I didn't create the article so much as piece together the three individual articles that existed before). Anyway, there is significant coverage in reliable sources: This article in the Orange County Register, This article in the Los Angeles Times, as well as some minor coverage here, here and here. One can find even more coverage of each of the hosts individually: Frosty, Frank, Heidi. Also podcasts of the show are available so we can verify things that were said on the show (not necessarily that the things they said were true, but we can verify that they said them). "More trouble than it's worth" is not a valid reason to delete an article about a notable radio show--if there are persistent BLP problems that's why we have tools like semi-protection and pending changes. I haven't much time to be active on Wikipedia lately, but whatever time I can muster up I will try to use to improve this article. DHowell (talk) 05:37, 17 August 2010 (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.