Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big O and Dukes

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. Seeing the distribution of keeps and deletes there is a consensus for the latter. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Big O and Dukes

Big O and Dukes (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Non notable local radio show. No significant history. Not syndicated.Rtphokie (talk) 15:56, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 16:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment- I'm neutral regarding this AFD. However, the show appears to be fairly well known in the Washington D.C. Metro area, beginning on WHFS before moving to WJFK-FM. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 19:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak delete since the article has no references to reliable secondary sources to prove notability. The article also needs extensive re-writing to make it less of a fan-page and more of an encyclopedia article but that's outside the scope of this nomination. If proper sourcing could be found, I'd move instead to keep this article (and then push for a major overhaul). - Dravecky (talk) 20:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep since I've found a couple of articles that mention the show and the hosts, albeit in the context of a focus on their then-new co-host (and eventual replacement) Ed Norris. Also, the article has been overhauled to be far more encyclopedic. - Dravecky (talk) 18:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment- Page should not be deleted, references should be used, but most content only references to the show itself, the show appears to be fairly well known in the Washington D.C. Metro area, beginning on WHFS before moving to WJFK-FM also the show is one of the top 100 downloaded podcasts off of ITunes, so must have some national recognition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mot520b (talk • contribs) 21:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment They have also been on the air in Baltimore and phoenix, so it is not just a local radio show as you claim. I also agree that the article needs re-writing.
  • Comment Maybe someone with a knowledge of the current DC radio market should be the oberstuermfuehrer of this movement to delete. Big O and Dukes replaced Opie and Anthony... you may have heard of them? (also beat their ratings in DC) Notable? Not syndicated? With listeners in Canada, Australia, and Arizona, syndication hardly matters, except in terms of Arbitron. If only secondary sources can be used (and the show itself is certainly a primary source) then quotes from the Constitution, Bible, and Koran are out of bounds, unless someone somewhere else has already quoted it. The logic here is: you can use a quote if you're the SECOND person quoting it, but not if you're the First. That makes no sense at all. Wikipedia gives nerds a bad name.
  • Comment - hard to make the case for notability when the top google hits are the wikipedia article itself, the show's myspace page.--Rtphokie (talk) 11:01, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Comment- Try googling any notable person or celebrity and the Wikipedia page will show up as one of the top hits. The show is trying to skew towards a younger audience than the other JFK shows, so it makes sense that they would want to take advantage of current social networking trends, including Myspace. DaltonAmes (talk) 02:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - sorry, didn't realize it was googlepedia.org Maybe someone with a knowledge of the current DC radio market should be the oberstuermfuehrer of this movement to delete. 08:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)08:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)08:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)08:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)216.49.77.67 (talk) 08:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC) L'il Douchebag
  • Comment - While these references are nice, they still don't establish notability. The Sun article does establish that the show exists and that they've had some notorious guests. The Burke Connection is a couple steps above a high school newspaper. These local radio show articles are not encyclopedic and focus on repositories for inside jokes and minutia.--Rtphokie (talk) 12:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  • How do i add a reference? - unsigned

*Weak keep While it's true the article is not perfect and lacks sources at this point that doesn't mean it can't become a better article. I'm sure if the proper resources were found, we could get it up to a good article. Milonica (talk) 18:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

    • Comment I'm all for keeping this article if it can be improved with reliable sources that establish notability. That hasn't happened and I dont see any indication that it can happen.--Rtphokie (talk) 17:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 18:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment Washington DC is the #9 radio market(out of 302) in the US based on Arbitron rankings (@arbitron.com). Check Radio and Records and you will see that WJFK is the top "talk radio"-only station in the DC market. --DaltonAmes (talk) 06:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Correction: I believe R&R lists WJFK as the top talk-radio-only station in the DC market because WJFK is the only station that has continuous local programming from 5 am to 7 pm. Since there's not much competition in that market, no wonder it's number one. WJFK has become what it is today and is known for one show and one show only, Don and Mike. Big O and Dukes are simply riding on their coattails. My two cents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.219.74 (talk) 22:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Comment While these are fine arguments for why WJFK-FM is notable, but noone is questioning that. We still need to locate non-trivial sources that establish the notability of this radio show.--Rtphokie (talk) 02:11, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Comment - My preceding comments were arguments for deleting the Big O and Dukes page, and for disproving WJFK's supposed notability. The point I was trying to make was that, since there is very little competition in the DC market for continuous, local programming, mags will be biased when rating WJFK. Yes, of course, WJFK will be number one, because they don't have any competitors. —71.178.231.204 (talk) 21:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Lacks non-trivial sourcing (WP:N). Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete Dravecky and several other users have been doing a good job trying to gather some references and clean it up, but there is an anonymous user who wants to keep the article, and he's giving everyone else a hard time. Dravecky and the other users are so frustrated with this anonymous user that they are "half-tempted to flip to "delete" just to be rid of the article and its attendant headaches." Lacks non-trivial sourcing (WP:N). Read the talk page —Loaves (talk) 20:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - Lacking notable references in compliance with wikipedias rules (WP:N). Loaves is right. There's this one anonymous user who's been giving us nothing but BS from the very beginning, and we've done nothing but try to help him out. —71.178.219.74 (talk) 20:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - wait, it gets better. 208.162.162.126 edited the original nomination. This is getting ridiculous. I wonder if the owners of this IP addresss, The Washington DC based Law Firm of Wiley Rein LLP know what their employees are doing on their free time. --Rtphokie (talk) 01:56, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Sounds like someone has a lot of time on his hands. Sounds like a nipple-taper to me. Tape your nipples? Why don't you call the law firm and ask them? Because you're powerless. I'll show you in my next edit... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.49.77.67 (talk) 19:39, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Comment - Ah. So, the feast ... really is "runed."
Comment The guy who replied to my post above by saying that WJFK was known for "one show only" - Don and Mike, was obviously baised. The fact is that The Junkies have the top morning drive slot and therefore are the real #1 show on WJFK. Recently, Don announced he was leaving the show in May, and Dave Hughes of the popular DC radio blog DCRTV (dcrtv.com - 3/25/2008) wrote that "much is still up in the air regarding the Mike O'Meara show, which will debut in June on WJFK-FM following the late May retirement of Don Geronimo." in the past, Dave Hughes has also stated that Big O and Dukes are being groomed to replace Don and Mike. So, once again, I have to wonder what is really going on here? Is this deletion campaign the work of a bunch of Don and Mike fanboys who are pissed that their favorite show is going away, and they want to sabotage the future stars of the station? DaltonAmes (talk) 06:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Comment - I'm the guy who replied to your post above. I think my point is being totally misconstrued. My point was that folks were saying that Big O and Dukes were notable simply because they are associated with WJFK; and WJFK is notable. My point was that WJFK is not as notable as people would believe it is. I'm not a fan of any of these radio shows. I have no axe to grind, no leg to pull. I haven't even heard of Big O and Dukes until this debate started. However, just to set the record strait, I would seriously disagree with you that The Junkies were the real #1 slot. I guess it would depend on what you meant. Maybe The Junkies and Don and Mike are tied? The latest Talkers Magazine Heavy Hundred list of the most important talk show hosts lists Don and Mike as being number 66. The Junkies were number 100. But this is about [[Big O and Dukes]. Like I said earlier. You can't say they have notability by way of proxy, or simply by association.
  • Delete - This page absolutely should be deleted for any and every reason mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.49.77.67 (talk) 19:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - The article should not be deleted because some ass wants to vandalize it. also why is it up to traditional media to decide what is notable? i mean people can't decide what people think is notable? also we all found this article so we all must have heard of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.134.129.206 (talk) 01:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - I know you're not talking about me, because why would I vote to delete (see above, Easy Reader Morgan_Freeman)an article that I want to vandalize? Esp. an article about a show I like and call regularly? I really don't think it should be deleted, but the people who want it deleted just may be the real asses. Try to focus, see the whole board... be easy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.49.77.67 (talk) 14:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
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.