Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 April 10

< Wikipedia:Deletion review | Log
< 2011 April 9
2011 April 11 >

10 April 2011

edit
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Cort and Fatboy (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

All apologies if the formatting on this review isn't up to snuff. Please feel free to edit.

  • Oppose I've been through a lot with this article in recent weeks. I defended it in a prior deletion review/debate back on March 18th only to discover that it was slated for deletion, again, when I returned from holiday last week. I attempted to defend the article on its talk page to no avail. The page has multiple citations, is encyclopedic and meets the standards for inclusion on Wikipedia. Nevertheless, several editors have felt the need to nitpick sources from several solid, reputable publications including the Associated Press and the Oregonian (the biggest daily in Oregon) and others. This is especially frustrating since so many other articles on the site are even less worthy of inclusion and only contain a few citations, if that. I have no idea why this article continues to receive such an unwarranted level of scrutiny. Stumptowner (talk) 19:56, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Based on the merits of two citations, there's more than enough here to warrant the page. Citation # 1, from the Oregonian, isn't available online for free but can be found via a Nexis search, for those who have an account. If need be, it can placed here for further scrutiny. Carlin's article from the Oregonian (# 7) isn't entirely about them but contains a strong paragraph about the hosts and the show. Excerpt:
    "...followed by "Cort and Fatboy," longtime Portland radio stalwarts whose stint on KUFO-FM ended last fall when the station switched owners. Always popular -- "We were No. 1 in our male, 18-to-49 demo," noted Bobby "Fatboy" Roberts -- the duo would obviously be happy to take a suitable offer from a traditional radio station. But even if Wagner can't pay them, Roberts said, pdx.fm gives them a remarkably potent launching pad for finding their own sponsors and for promoting the special events (midnight movies, the weekly "Lost" screening at the Bagdad Theater) they produce, most often for money.
    'Our show can get something like 10,000 listeners a day, counting the stream and podcasts," Roberts says. "And there's money there. We've got to hustle harder for it, but it's there.'" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stumptowner (talk • contribs) 23:38, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Having 10,000 listeners a day does not equate to notability. If a certain number of listeners or views meant anything, hundreds of YouTube videos would have articles as well. But this is not the case. Every topic on Wikipedia has to assert notability in the form of reliable sources. Mentioned in a single line in a "major" Oregon newspaper does not assert the notability of a radio/podcast/whatever you're calling it. Being the feature of the article would be a different story. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:41, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmmmm....a single line? Please have another look. There's two paragraphs up there and multiple lines. Furthermore, you may not think much of Oregon or its biggest daily (or its multiple Pulitzers) but you are being more than a little bit patronizing. I wonder, do you hold a similar view of the Philadelphia Enquirer, that state's "major" newspaper? Stumptowner (talk) 22:17, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, my quotation marks around the word "major" was just to show that that was what you used to describe the newspaper. I've never heard of the newspaper, and I apologize if it looked like I was mocking it. Anyway, I re-checked the article, and you're correct, there were two paragraphs that talked about the show (one of which is entirely made up of a quote, however). I still do not believe this radio show meets WP:GNG, specifically that it has not received "significant coverage." Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:49, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, what about the Williams article, posted below? Credible? Not credible? Stumptowner (talk) 16:45, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I would review it and tell you, but I cannot seem to find the link. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:55, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I included a few excerpts from Lee's article below. The article isn't archived online, unfortunately. The O's online archives only go back 5 years and this one went to print in 2006. That said, here's a few other articles on the show from The Oregonian that might be up to snuff: [1] [2] Stumptowner (talk) 22:53, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I would consider those trivial mentions, since they only briefly mention Cort and Fatboy. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:12, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Really? The Lee Williams article was entirely about the show, the hosts and their monthly movie series at the Bagdad Theater in Portland. They were not "briefly mentioned." Also: one other citation that I'd like you to look at. Again, the show is the focus. The name of the show is even in the headline. http://blogtown.portlandmercury.com/BlogtownPDX/archives/2009/10/23/well-fuck-cort-and-fatboy-just-got-fired 71.237.193.124 (talk) 01:05, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, here's another citation that should meet these standards. The hosts appeared on the television program 'Outlook Program' in February of 2010 to discuss the show. http://outlookportland.wordpress.com/2010/02/06/outlook-portland-presents-robert-bobby-roberts-cort-robert Stumptowner (talk) 01:24, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse- consensus at the AfD was pretty clear, and complaining that Wikipedia is full of crappy articles that never get looked at is no reason to overturn it. Reyk YO! 20:59, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment You raise a good point but, that said, this article has ten sources and, if anything, should have a solid foundation for inclusion (especially based on the standards applied to so many other items on Wikipedia). If the same standards were applied to all of those, a good 3/4s of Wikipedia's articles wouldn't exist. The high standards reserved for the Cort and Fatboy article is incredibly frustrating and altogether unreasonable. Stumptowner (talk) 23:25, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    No different standard is being applied. To meet the inclusion criteria the WP:GNG required multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. The non-trivial part appears to be where the AFD found these sources lacking - they don't address the subject of the article directly and in detail - they are either not about the radio show (address the subject directly), or passing mentions (in detail). Alluding to other articles where you imagine a different standard is being applied says nothing, some articles may not meet the standard and when someone nominates them for deletion may be deleted. Others may have fewer references but if they satisfy the actual requirement then the few is far better than having bucket loads of references which don't. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS arguments are really weak arguments, each article has to stand on it's own, if the best thing to be said about an article is that it's not as bad as something else, that's not a great boast. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 06:23, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, a different standard is being applied. There should be no doubt about that. If you deny this, I can easily supply you with a dozen Wikipedia articles off the top of my head with one or two flimsy citations. But enough about that. The Williams piece from The Oregonian, "Midnight With the Movie Cultists," citation # 1, is entirely focused on the show and its midnight movie series. The article from The Portland Mercury does the same, citation # 2. While a few of these citations may warrant what you call "passing mentions," these two are solid sources.Stumptowner (talk) 19:17, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Show me an AFD discussion about a podcast where the article has been kept with similarly weak sourcing? In fact your convinced this is such a broad consipiracy show me 10 such AFDs where a podcast has been kept with weaker sourcing. Weaker meaning they don't have independant reliable third party sources which address the podcast directly and in detail. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 19:56, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    First off, as stated below by user TEG, the show is not a "podcast." It's an online radio show that draws around 10K+ listeners in a given day. Furthermore, I would like you to defend your accusation that the sourcing on the article is "weak." An Oregonian article I added on Friday included a substantial rundown on the show. While the article was ostensibly about Cascadia FM, there was enough material on Cort and Fatboy to make it a solid, reputable citation. The articles by Carlin and Williams are more focused on the show and come from The Oregonian as well. The Cinematical article further adds credibility to the page. Those of but three of the ten sources on the article. If it is restored, I'm prepared to add further sources. One of the first changes that would also be made is to change "podcast" in the intro paragraph to "online radio program." Before you ask, "Oregon Live" is the website for the Oregonian and it's the largest daily publication in the state. Citations 5 and 7, while not focused entirely on the show, do discuss it for at least a few paragraphs. That should make them worthwhile and credible. Stumptowner (talk) 23:25, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    So I take it that's a no you can't show me these AFDs where different standards are being applied. -- 82.7.40.7 (talk) 06:19, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You're avoiding the real argument here, why or why not these key citations are or are not credible, in your opinion. Address that and I'll give you your AFDs. Stumptowner (talk) 22:26, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope. DRV is not AFD round 2, so issues about the sources etc. were addressed and that was the consensus. DRV is not here simply to reargue the AFD just because you disagree. I am however interested in your claim that a substantially different standard being applied, something you've claimed multiple times and now you are apparently unwilling or unable to actually back your claim. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 06:05, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    No, the discussion of the sources were never properly addressed. Those involved in those prior debates locked in on the AP article and ignored the ones from the Oregonian. Stumptowner (talk) 16:45, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Still no sign of those many many discussion where substantially different standards are applied then? --82.7.40.7 (talk) 19:39, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Riddle me this: why would I, as a fan of internet radio shows, want to give you, an anonymous user with troll-ish tendencies and an evident passion for pedantic arguments, a list of links to articles with shaky citations? You'd probably run amuck with "speedy delete" tags. Stumptowner (talk) 22:58, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    So rather than actually back your claims you'd rather restort to trying petty insults and insinuation. You also seem to admit that those articles with poor citations would be eligible for deletion if listed, i.e. applying the same standard, not the vastly different standard you claim. Thanks all I needed to know.--82.7.40.7 (talk) 06:23, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Stumptowner, please do not assume malicious intend on behalf of other editors, even IP editors. This is Deletion review. The burden of proof for doing something different is on the part of people who want the AfD action reverse. In this case, the people who want to undelete the article have to demonstrate, beyond the burden, that the article qualifies for inclusion. Having looked at the article in both incarnations and looked at the sources I am not impressed enough to consider it includable per the notability and reliable sources policies. Hasteur (talk) 11:53, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Before this discussion jumped the rails, the point I was trying to prove is that Wikipedia is full of similar articles with equally "weak" or weaker citations. They're allowed to stand and aren't subjected to nearly the same level of scrutiny as this radio show. I think we can all agree on this. If you really need proof, here is one such example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lars_Larson Stumptowner (talk) 01:14, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    That's still an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, that doesn't appear to have been listed for deletion, a brief look and I in my opinion (FWIW) that article in it's current form (i.e. without looking if there is other material and refs which could be added) would probably be deleted if taken to AFD. That no one has taken it to AFD doesn't lower the standard articles have to meet. --82.7.44.178 (talk) 07:21, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    If you believe the other articles are not up to snuff, follow deletion procedures for them and get editors' opinions that way. This deletion review is not the avenue by which to do it. CycloneGU (talk) 14:10, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    To be fair I requested that the material was pointed out, it doesn't show what I felt was required (set of AFDs where article had similar standard of sourcing), and so doesn't change much here. But still was on my request. --82.7.44.178 (talk) 17:04, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (edit conflict) - Consensus was clearly to delete because of notability issues. The sources (where independant of the subject) contained only casual mentions of the show. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not enough grounds to keep the article. If you happen to come across articles that "are even less worthy of inclusion and only contain a few citations, if that" please feel free to nominate them for deletion. Jarkeld (talk) 21:03, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment This isn't true. An Oregonian article I added on Friday included a substantial rundown on the show. While the article was ostensibly about Cascadia FM, there was enough material on Cort and Fatboy to make it a solid, reputable citation. The articles by Carlin and Williams are more focused on the show and come from The Oregonian as well. The Cinematical article further adds credibility to the page. Stumptowner (talk) 23:25, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I didn't see any real discussion of the mercury source in the discussion. While the sources are largely local (only mentions elsewhere) it does seem to meet WP:N. I feel the closer read the discussion correctly, but I can't say I agree with the discussion. Hobit (talk) 22:04, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    this one? Hardly goes towards notability: just a mention that they got fired. Lots of people get fired and maybe get a small article on a newspaper blog, but that does not mean we should have articles on all those people just for that. Jarkeld (talk) 22:17, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment This is also false. The blog post discusses the show's popularity in Portland and the events the hosted have hosted in the city. Stumptowner (talk) 23:25, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the word "discusses" is stretching the meaning somewhat. There is no discussion just a list of a few things with no detail. I'm not sure any of it would be useful material for an article - "more than a few people in Portland listened" is hardly encyclopedia material. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 06:32, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It's more than a passing mention & it's reliable. It would seem to count toward WP:N... Hobit (talk) 07:45, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak endorse The closer certainly closed this per the discussion. That said, though I found the discussion lacked in many ways (was the problem no RSes? Too local? I really can't tell), the final result wasn't unreasonable (sources are certainly on the light side though just past WP:N in my opinion) and so I see no reason to overturn. IMO we should have articles like this, but my opinion doesn't determine how things work around here :-) Hobit (talk) 10:40, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This material's had every possible opportunity to make its case for inclusion in the encyclopaedia. The rough consensus is that it hasn't succeeded, so I think we have to endorse.—S Marshall T/C 11:09, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Not true. The article was subjected to another deletion review on March 18th and was allowed to be reinstated. Then, just a few weeks later, it was subjected to another "speedy delete" tag and here we are again, discussing the matter unnecessarily. Stumptowner (talk) 01:34, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll thank you not to call me a liar. The closer of this debate is perfectly capable of reading the 18th March DRV, seeing what conclusion it really reached, and judging for himself whether the AfD was "unnecessary". What's unnecessary is this discussion.—S Marshall T/C 09:38, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    This discussion is entirely necessary since everyone who has voted for its deletion have been unwilling to consider several citations and their merit. Stumptowner (talk) 01:34, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse This article was created, AfDed, brought to DRV and overturned on a technicality, re-AfDed, and now is back at DRV. The notability of the subject was on par with any other metro area's afternoon radio personalities, i.e. Not enough for inclusion to Wikipedia. This article has had more than enough time to get proper references demonstrating it's notability (as was stated at both AfDs). In both cases of AfD, there were multiple WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments for why we should keep the article. Hasteur (talk) 12:07, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The practical meaning of OTHERSTUFF is the observation that our decisions on borderline articles tends to be random. That's probably half of AfD. Going either way: deciding to uniformly keep or to delete all borderline articles, or borderline articles on a particular class of subject, would be rational. Making the decision by pure chance without the necessity of AfD would be as rational as the current procedure, and a lot simpler and more equitable. A responsible information source is predictable. A reader has a right to expect that whatever level of inclusion is chosen, it will be the same from item to item. My preferred solution is a Wikipedia Two - an encyclopedia supplement where the standard of notability is much relaxed, but which will be different from Wikia by still requiring WP:Verifiability, and NPOV. It would include the lower levels of barely notable articles in Wikipedia, and the upper levels of a good deal of what we do not let in. . The deletionists will have this material out of Wikipedia, the inclusionists will have it not rejected. As a preliminary, it would be interesting to see a search option:
Do you want to see everything (WP+WP2), or only the notable(W)
Anyone care to guess which people would choose? (I assume we are making an encyclopedia for use, not as an abstract exercise to examine the scalability of crowdsourcing.) DGG ( talk ) 16:40, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem is that if we draw a line somewhere about inclusion (and I belive we need such a line) there will always be cases on the line which could "drop" either way. We can't come up with a totally bullet proof 100% certainty model without it becoming a nonsense and something in itself people would argue endlessly about. I we move the line 1 foot back or foward, all we'll do is move where the edge cases are, we don't remove them. From your idea this is WP2 which is effectively everything which can be verified to exist? as to if people choose it, I suspect many wouldn't, the disambiguation for people called John Smith would just become ludicrous (and it's already quite big). Not to mention that given that we can't find much sourcing, the chances are that the pages would be pretty stubby etc. An interesting idea nevertheless. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 18:36, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as the AfD made quite clear that the 'solid' sources were really about somebody else with a bare mention of the subject or did not discuss the program at all (the duo also hosted a local viewing party for the Lost finale). Proper procedures were followed and this article has had two bites at the apple in quick succession. - Dravecky (talk) 17:29, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not true. As stated above, the Williams piece from The Oregonian, "Midnight With the Movie Cultists," citation # 1, is entirely focused on the show and its midnight movie series. The article from The Portland Mercury does the same, citation # 2. While a few of these citations may warrant what you call "passing mentions," these two are solid sources. Stumptowner (talk) 19:23, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the recent deletion occurred while I was away. I'm prepared to further work on the article and add further citations if it's given another chance. Stumptowner (talk) 23:29, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose This article is not about a "podcast", but for a radio program, broadcast over the Internet, with listeners around the world. Just because "you" haven't heard of them, does not make them any less notable than any other radio show, local or syndicated, who have extensive articles on Wikipedia. We are in a new era of media, it doesn't matter if the show started in terrestrial radio, ended, and started again in Internet Radio, it is notable, even if in a limited form, compared to some others. TEG (talk) 21:00, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see WP:EXISTS for why your rationale is entirely incorrect. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:17, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    While TEG's argument may be irrelevant, the continued debate over the citations included in the article and whether or not they're credible and strong enough to warrant an article about the show, is entirely relevant. Stumptowner (talk) 23:29, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse consensus was fairly clear that the sourcing of the article wasn't enough to give notability. The arguments made by the articles defenders opposing the closure are largely limited to the kind of things that were discussed at the AfD (deletion review is not a second round of AfD) or are flawed for other reasons. Wouldn't object to userfication if someone wants to work on it. Hut 8.5 17:52, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So be it. If that happens, I'll dive in and get to work on bringing the article up to snuff. Stumptowner (talk) 22:32, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Opposestruck through as this is just a further comment by the nominator, see below Lee Williams article in the Oregonian focuses entirely on the show, the hosts and their midnight movie series. This is a rather solid citation. The first citation mentioned in the old article, I believe. It was posted here a bit ago but removed by an admin over copyright concerns. Here are two excerpts from the article:
  • "At a quarter till midnight on a recent Friday night at the Bagdad Theater, the KUFO drive-time team, Cort and Fatboy, are fueling some midnight movie madness.The two DJs are hosting a movie trivia game called "Stump the Movie (Person)" before the special midnight showing of "Caddyshack" to a rowdy, near-full house."
  • "It's not quite that crazed this night at the Bagdad, where Cort and Fatboy began showing the late-night movies earlier this summer. (Consider the night an overtime version of their 6-9 p.m. weekday radio broadcast.) Expect some wild fans and maybe some drink specials to fit the flick as well. White Russians were the big drink of choice, the pair says, when they fired up "The Big Lebowski," which launched their movie series in May." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.237.193.124 (talk) 23:38, 12 April 2011 (UTC) — 71.237.193.124 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    I have blocked the above IP as a suspected sockpuppet of a user with an account, used to create an illusion of support in this discussion. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:09, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry about that. It wasn't my intention to break out a sock-puppet smoke screen. I didn't realize I didn't login when I got home last night. Ok, that said, why or why not is this article by Lee Williams from the Oregonian a credible citation? Stumptowner (talk) 16:47, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    So you didn't see putting a second bolded sentiment as having a double !vote? I've struck that out above since your stance has already been clearly stated as nominator. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 19:41, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse This article rings a very strong bell although as far as I recall I never tagged, edited or commented on it. I have now reviewed every AfD, DrV, and deleted version, and my verdict then as now, would have been 'delete' in every instance. Consensus at the AfD was clear, the sources are inadequate, the sockpuppetry raises other motives to keep this article, WP:OTHERSTUFF is of course no defence and this DRV should not become a meta discussion. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:33, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    See the note above re "sock-puppetry." As stated elsewhere in this discussion, prior discussions of the articles merits seemed to lock in on the weaker citations while ignoring the stronger ones. I remain convinced and willing to argue that the Lee Williams piece, in addition to the other articles from The Oregonian, should clear the article's "notability" hurdle. Stumptowner (talk) 16:45, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse no substantive issues with the deletion process presented. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 06:23, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Much of the material above this endorsement suggests otherwise. Stumptowner (talk) 01:26, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yet no one but you can see it I guess. --82.7.44.178 (talk) 07:14, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Stum, you are the only one making the arguments. Unfortunately, I only see one other vote opposing deletion. I don't have an opinion on this one myself - not yet in any case. CycloneGU (talk) 14:14, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2011_April_10&oldid=1140386334"