Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NonProductive

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 keep (in some form). No valid arguments for delete apart from the nomination, and redirection is governed by the normal workings of consensus, not AfD. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 01:53, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NonProductive

Not Notable —ExplorerCDT 06:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I recommended this article for deletion as this is a not notable radio program on WRSU at Rutgers University and isn't really known outside the Rutgers University community. Heck, I graduated there and knew one of the hosts during my years "on the banks" and didn't even know it existed until the creator of this article tried to add a link to this article from the Rutgers article. This article does not meet the notability guidelines/policies. Furthermore, suspecting that the creator of this article is somehow involved in the program, this meets the guideline under WP:NOT which states that Wikipedia is not a soapbox for advertising, self-promotion, etc. Also, Wikipedia is not google and this article might fall under the categorisation of Vanispamcruftisement. At best, this article's content should be condensed and merged with WRSU, and this article deleted.—ExplorerCDT 06:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Merge content with WRSU and delete, as nom. —ExplorerCDT 06:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Attribution for the content needs to be retained per GFDL, so if content is merged, you cannot delete the edit history. Besides, why not redirect so readers who search for this end up at the place where the article is? - Mgm|^(talk) 10:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• I see your point, but I doubt anyone knows NonProductive exists much less would search for it (except out of vanity, perhaps). —ExplorerCDT 06:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• Your response is about what wrote as a kind of a side note. The first line of my comment was the important one. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect to WRSU. --MCB 07:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per above, non-notable. Sandstein 20:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect - this isn't notable. Full disclosure: I'm mentioned in the article, so feel free to discount my vote if that's appropriate. Digamma 13:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, It may not be surprising, but my reasoning is for keep, and I’ll explain why. The article is notable as the subject has aired consistently over the past 10 years with approximately 500 shows. There are many shows that have aired more and many that have aired less, but I’d like to suggest that there is a large enough presence to justify the need for an article. There is the notion that this is a vanity/promotion page – which is perfectly understandable, but I believe may be merely a gut reaction. During the show’s 10 year run it has had a rotating panel of hosts, none of which are still involved with the show after their term, and dozens of cast members who likewise graduate to new projects unrelated to the program. While this may not eliminate the fear of vanity page, I believe this weakens the idea that anyone would benefit greatly by using this for self-promotion or narcissism. While I have been the heaviest contributor to the article so far (also reasonably taken as evidence of non notability) we should take into consideration that the article is new, the show is about begin its newest season, and that more edits and searches by Wikipedians should be expected in the coming months (assuming no one is dissuaded to “waste their time” on an article marked for deletion). Some of those who have commented for deletion have remarked that it is unlikely that anyone knows about the show outside the Rutgers Community, and that they themselves haven’t heard of it until after graduation or being pointed directly to it. While that may seem like a logical argument for deletion, we are all aware that there are numerous articles on subjects we were not personally aware of – and that personal non-notability does not translate over the universal non-notability. Also, many years have passed since the nominator may have been peripherally aware of the show, and as such it has expanded considerably and become far more popular under the control of subsequent hosts. With regard to the idea that few outside Rutgers would be aware of the show, please note the number of articles depicting campus life elements that have become popularized throughout the state and country (i.e. Grease Trucks) - while this precedent does not make for a solid rule of inclusion, it hopefully will encourage others to think twice before marking for deletion based on a “potential lack of public knowledge as interpreted by personal experience”. Finally, while merging and redirecting with WRSU is an understandable alternative to deletion, I feel it would only serve to divert attention from the other aspects of the radio station – which is far more then a paragraph on broadcast range and three paragraphs on just one of their many shows.

Aside from rebutting the argument for deletion, I would like to make another argument for keep. The nature of the collegiate setting makes for a constantly rotating student body, which has experienced 10 graduating classes since the premiere of the show. As a result, no one currently involved with the show, and few people who currently listen to the show, were around for the history of the series. Incoming freshmen were eight years old when the show premiered, and are unlikely to have been fans from the start. It is for these people (who will undoubtedly use the popular free encyclopedia to discover more about the show) that the article was written – to do exactly what Wikipedia articles are designed to do – inform and educate the masses.

When reviewing articles for deletion me must be positive in outlook, not merely assume the worse. The negative assumption here is that the article will be useless to any Wikipedian and that it could only serve to promote those behind it – the positive assumption is that it is a neutrally drafted article that contains information that may be useful to individuals curious enough to research a program that is new to them.

Of course, you are all free to make up your own minds as you see fit. Good luck! ParticularlyEvil 19:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment for edification: User:ParticularlyEvil is the creator of the article NonProductive currently under discussion, and it's primary contributor. See [1] —ExplorerCDT 19:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: (to User:ParticularlyEvil), your argument is circular in nature in that in conflicts with Wikipedia's policies about What Wikipedia is Not, namely advertising, a predictor or crystal ball (i.e. "maybe these people will be interested to find out more and then this show will become notable...) and it's an argument begging for an exception to be made despite admitting entirely that this article should be deleted/redirected/etc. because it doesn't meet Wikipedia's guidelines and policies meriting inclusion. Just because something lasts for 10 years does not make it notable, important, or encyclopaedic — three attributes that each subject receiving an article on wikipedia needs to be. Despite your poignant appeal, an argument to keep this article based on logical fallacies, (i.e. an argumentum ad misericordiam, ad consequentiam, an Appeal to flattery, Misleading vividness and an argumentum verbosium ) is, quite frankly, a bad argument. —ExplorerCDT 19:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: (to User:ExplorerCDT), Let’s be civil here. In my own comment I noted that I was the majority contributor to the article, I am not sure further edification was necessary.

Furthermore, perhaps unintentionally, your use of quotation marks imply that I stated "maybe these people will be interested to find out more and then this show will become notable...” These were never my words, but merely your interpretations of my words.

The argument is not circular, predictive, nor begging for a special exception for this article. Nor does it admit it whole or in part that the article should be deleted/redirected or anything short of kept. I rebutted your opinions and stated my own interpretation on them. Furthermore, if you feel running off a list of logical fallacies backs up you argument, then I suppose your comment was worthwhile to you.

It is clear your vote remains with delete, which I respect, and mine remains with keep, which I hope you will respect in kind. Rather then keep the momentum this has developed as a debate between two users, I think it is best to sit back and let others voice their opinions with both our standpoints here to look upon. I would like to see if the article will survive on its own merits. ParticularlyEvil 20:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Rockhopper78 00:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)I'd like to add my two cents here. Once again, full disclosure; I am one of the people mentioned as a member of the Non-Productive show cast in the article. I was not a contributor to the wiki article, but heard about it through another party. I vote that the article be kept. I disagree with the notion that the show is non-notable. I was part of the show's early cast and crew. After graduation, I lost contact with the show and had assumed that the show no longer existed. In the not-too-distant past, I learned that the show was alive and well, having passed through the hands of many different hosts, cast members and crew throughout the years. Non-Productive has now been a part of the Rutgers community for approximately a decade, and it appears to have picked up enough self-sustaining steam to remain a part of that community for well beyond the forseeable future. It is, has been, and will be the result of the combined efforts of a wide spectrum of diverse contributors and will continue to an assest to the local community for a long time to come. It does not nor has ever required any outside promotion, and I do not believe that the article was written in that vein. Rather, I interpret the article (ackowledged to still be in its infant form) to be a growing record of this collaborative effort.

• Comment: This is the first and only edit by User:Rockhopper78. See [2]. Possible sockpuppet. Writing style and structure too similar to User:ParticularlyEvil. Requesting CheckUser. —ExplorerCDT 02:08, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect and merge as per above --Etaonish 02:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC) (forgot to log in)

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.