Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dante and The Brick

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 this and Fire It Up with The Spinners. - Bobet 17:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dante and The Brick

Advertisement Cfrydj 19:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• This is a third-party account of a college radio show. Not an advertisement, since it is not-for-profit.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.51.45.135 (talk • contribs)
  • A lot of the article is written in first-person, and thus could not be a third-party account. Cfrydj 20:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Okay, even if it isn't advertisement, it's not notable. --Nishkid64 20:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• I'd have to say this article could be written better - i.e. third person and removing the "our" that is used here and there. But the show is relevant - other WMFO radio programs have wikipedia entries. Therefore, I wouldn't delete it; I'd just have it cleaned up a little. Fireitup 20:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I can find an article of the WMFO radio station, but am unable to find Wikipedia entries for other WMFO radio programs. Could you give some examples, please? Cfrydj 20:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
    • How about Fire It Up, along with Dante and The Brick, the stations top two shows. Just because you haven't heard it, doesn't mean it is not good.

• This article could easily be written better, and should be written better. But it is not an advertisement and it is indeed notable.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.51.45.135 (talk • contribs)

• If Fireitup is in any way related to the Fire It Up radio show mentioned in the article, then that user has a vested interest in this article. Both of the anonymous comments came from the IP address that wrote the bulk of this article. We need some unbiased opinions added to this debate.Cfrydj 20:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete There are no reliable sources to suggest that this show is notable, if other WMFO programs have articles and are also not notable then I suggest those be nominated for deletion as well. DrunkenSmurf 20:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment In addition I would suggest adding Fire It Up with The Spinners to this AfD since it is another WMFO program that suffers from the same notability and reliable sources issues as this does. DrunkenSmurf 20:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest that the DrunkenSmurf (Personal attack removed) instead of deleting Wikipedia entries of Sports Talk Radio programs in the Greater Boston area. By quickly looking at his profile, I know exactly why he has no life (went to Holy Cross). GO EAGLES! (#23 AP Poll) —Preceding unsigned comment added by BriBrick (talk • contribs)

• Ah personal attacks, you flatter me :) DrunkenSmurf 20:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. This article is largely unverifiable, lacks reliable sources, and is not notable. The subject hasn't received any press attention from what I can tell. Srose (talk) 20:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• I have added Fire It Up with The Spinners to this AfD because it also lacks any notability. I would request that the author do not remove that nomination, as he has done once already. Cfrydj 20:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Cfrydj, I never removed the nomination to delete the Fire It Up page. Erroneous.Fireitup 21:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• • My mistake, it was BriBrick that removed the nomination to delete. As we can see from this user's above comments, he/she does have some sort of connection to the WMFO radio station. Cfrydj 21:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Cfrydj, I challenge you to dispute the objectivity of the Fire It Up page. It is written in third person and is linked to multiple other wikipedia sources. The page could be expanded upon by numerous editors in the listening region. The show has been written about in "The Tufts Daily," "The Stonehill Summit," and has been associated with multiple sporting events involving actual Division II and III university athletic teams. The Fire It Up page is not some cryptic babble, and it certainly IS noteable. Erroneous on both counts.Fireitup 21:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• I am not disputing the objectivity of the Fire It Up page. I am disputing its notability. It also contains no reliable sources. I am not sure what makes you say that it is "linked to multiple other wikipedia sources". The article does contain links to other Wikipedia articles, but no other Wikipedia articles contain links to it. I am afraid a campus radio station that has been written about by campus newspapers does not qualify as notable.Cfrydj 21:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• So throughout the lengthy history of Wikipedia, whenever articles didn't have links to them, does that mean they were automatically not notable? I am sure it takes time to build such links. If a college newspaper isn't notable, then why are there wikis for college newspapers? Also, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_M._Silverstein is an entry for a gentleman who has affiliation with WMFO, as you asked, as well as college newspapers. In accordance with the notability clause you cite, this page would be deleted as well. And I'm sure a great many other pages would be. Taking edits "by the book" would devoid wikipedia of a resounding amount of valuable information. I simply ask that my entry be spared from what seems to be an argument so editors CAN link to it. Fireitup 21:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • At no point have I said that this article should be deleted because of a lack of links to it. I was only refuting your above claim that it was notable because of nonexistent links. Mr. Silverstein is an award-winning columnist. The fact that he gives commentary on "The Ari G Show" does nothing for the notability of either the "Dante and The Brick" or "Fire It Up with The Spinners" shows.Cfrydj 21:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Sir, while suggesting the Fire It Up page should be deleted, you used the statement "but no other Wikipedia articles contain links to it," therefore you used the argument that the article should be deleted based on a lack of links. Also, if you intend to use Mr. Silverstein's notability as an award-winng columnist as a a juxtaposition to the Fire It Up page, it should be noted that the award he received does not have a wikipedia page. Thus, his merit as an "award-winning columnist" is moot.Fireitup 21:45, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm afraid that you are missing the point entirely. In each successive comment, all I have been doing is showing how your arguments in favour of the notability of the article are irrelevant. The only reason I added the Fire It Up page was because of its lack of notability. I only mentioned the lack of links to the article in response to your claim that those links existed. Check the order of the comments, and you will see that this is the case. I also only refered to Mr. Silverstein in response to your claim that his connection with WMFO somehow gave the article on the Fire It Up radio show some notability, which is not the case. I hope that the misunderstandings are settled now. Cfrydj 21:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• I respectuflly reply that I have only been trying to engage you in a bttle of logic. See, my refutations have only surfaced to refute your refutations. Let's put it this way: I feel you are wasting your time trying to delete the Fire It Up article. It would not have been deleted had this discussion not occured. I am going to try to edit the article to match it to the specifications upon which you insist. In the meantime I would appreciate that you remove the nomination for deletion. Thank you, 71.233.255.131 22:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC) Only edits are to this page. :) Dlohcierekim 18:46, 14 September 2006 (UTC)"""
  • That decision is up to the Wikipedia community now, to be decided by consensus. So far, anybody not personally connected to either of the two radio shows has voted for it to be deleted. I'm not sure how you will edit the article to make the radio show have some notability, I'm curious to see the end result.Cfrydj 22:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• However, when you think of it, the editor of the Fire It Up page and the editor of the Dante and the Brick page have no personal connection through edits to each other's pages, thus each page has one vote for undeletion. The opposition consists of you and two Holy Cross students, who clearly have a bias against Boston College, Tufts University, Stonehill College, the Dante and the Brick show, blegs, Joe Mauer, all of it. That's just the way it works here. That is clearly unfair. Thus we stand even, one vote to one, in terms of unbiased voters.Fireitup 22:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• What you have also failed to take into consideration are the notability of the guests which appear on Dante and The Brick each and every week. Prof. Chow from Tufts University is an award-winning computer scientist, his work has appeared on Oreilly.net as well as published in various industry periodicals. Mohammad Jahed Dirkalurka is an innovative thinker, who would call out anyone trying to destroy this page as a devil. Bitch Slap Guy is a man of brains and braun, after Katie Couric is done at CBS, it will be him bringing you the news. And needless to say, The Olse & Harry Carey, longtime friends who enjoy each others company as well as each others humor. The Olse is a drunk Irishman, and Harry has been dead for 8 years, but both contribute to this fine show, whose Wikipedia page you are going to delete. And why is that, because you didn't get the job at the mall as the security guard with the big ugly sombrero, so you did the next best thing, make yourself God of wikipedia, where you can control what is notable. F Wikipedia, Dante and The Brick and Fire It Up will Live Forever!

• I disassociate myself from the racial profiling displayed in the last article, but do note the scientific achievements of one Mr. Chow. He is a notable fellow, a man of letters, a man of foresight.Fireitup 22:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• Mr. Chow is a man of foresight, and with that being said, he wants to ask, have you ever done it in the butt?
• Delete - Local radio shows are not necessarily notable, and this one certainly isn't. My Alt Account 22:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• You are right, local shows are not notable until they become syndicated and POOP all over your radios, just like Dante and The Brick as well as Fire It Up will be doing very soon.

• If you think about it, the world is a better place today, not because these pages will soon be deleted, but because many more people are now aware of WMFO "The MoFO", and will undoubtedly be tuning into both of these fine programs to hear what kind of shananigans happen then.

Do Not Delete I feel people are making a mistake, such as the "My Alt Account" gentleman, by not addressing each show proposed for deletion separately. We do not now if he finds Fire It Up or Dante and the Brick to be the non-notable show. I do agree with the later commenter who believes this discussion is spreading the gospel of WMFO, just as a wiki page for Marlboro cigarettes informs people about cigarettes. Thus these pages must be notable.Fireitup 23:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Some people just need to mind their own business. Why is this page under attack by the Cyber-Geek Squad. —the preceding comment is by 24.147.18.43 - 23:17, 12 September 2006: Please sign your posts!

• Delete both Fire It Up with The Spinners and Dante and The Brick per Nishkid64, et al. I hope your show is so wildly successful that an encyclopedia article is appropriate. Until then, you might ponder WP:NOT. Sorry. William Pietri 23:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• I just read the What Wikipedia is not article. I wonder exactly how the Fire It Up with The Spinners page in any way meets the criteria outlined in the description. Not to mention, I didn't see any direct links dealing with the N word (notable) on that page. Just some food for thought.71.233.255.131 00:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC) Only edits are to this page. :) Dlohcierekim 18:46, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete both per WP:VAIN: Neither are notable. Dante article fails WP:SPAM. Dante grew out of WVBC (Bethany College) into WMFO (Tufts University); Fire it up has grown out of WSHL (Stonehill College) to WMFO (Tufts University), but it's still student radio. 15 unique out of 75 Ghits for "Fire it up" + WMFO, 6 unique out of 7 Ghits for "Fire it up" + WSHL; 85 out of 273 Ghits for Dante + WMFO, with greater incidence of irrelevant hits. Most relevant hits are the station, spinitron, directory 130.64.87.67, INLD (dead link to previous webhost), and a few wiki mirrors. No serious sources (reviews etc) to back up the article. In other words, utterly fails WP:V. Ohconfucius 04:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Confucius has a solid point. Finally, someone who was able to explain the matter. I don't know what a Ghit is, and I don't know why people continue to cite "student radio" as if it is a demerit, considering student radio stations have wikis, but I believe the vanity clause explains it all. I believe this also qualifies me to ask, out of my own vanity, that people mind their own business.Fireitup 12:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete 10 unique google hits, the top which are for this article. There is nothing notable in the article, and once you remove the advert fluff, you have little else. Wikipedia is an encyclopeida, not MySpace. :) Dlohcierekim 01:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out my typo. There will probably be more. Please feel free to correct any typo's you find without comment. The truth is though, this is not myspace. Oh, I know you are upset, but you need to leave out the personal attacks, OK? Cheers and happy editng. :) Dlohcierekim 18:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

• • I missed this was a 2 for 1 deal. Delete both My cooments above apply to both. :) Dlohcierekim 01:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Learn how to spell dumbass. What is an encyckopedia?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.51.45.135 (talk • contribs) User has been heavily involved in editing the encyclopedia article in question. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 18:41, 14 September 2006 (UTC) Commentor is a no talent ass-clown, in the same fashion as one Michael Bolton.

Comment User:Fireitup is a single purpose account. :) Dlohcierekim 01:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment I would suggest not deleting these pages. I think if they were properly re-worked, they would be useful to wikipedia users. This looks to me like an argument over semantics and number of google hits. I think a well-written article on an actual subject, such as a radio show, should stand on its own. It exists over the broadcast airwaves, for sure. And personally, I like to listen to Fire It Up.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.64.34.202 (talk • contribs) :) Dlohcierekim 18:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC) (Only edits are to this page.) :) Dlohcierekim 18:41, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

This is not a matter of semantics, but of notability requirements for an encyclopedia. There are many, many programs on the airways that are not sufficiently notable to have encyclopedia articles. Google hits are one way of rating notability. There are others-- no evidence for the subject meeting those criteria has been provided in "keep" arguments. Perhaps the creator of the article can turn his talents to constructively editing other articles. The deletion of this article will not in any way stop you from listening to Fire It UP. Cheers and happy editing. :) Dlohcierekim 18:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

This is not a matter of semantics or notability. This is a matter of pride. Dante and The Brick along with the Spinners from Fire It Up will not go out without the longest debate in Wikipedia history for an article undoubtedly headed toward deletion by the cyber geek-squad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.51.45.135 (talk • contribs)

• I don't have any other talent except the talent of great radio. Needless to say, I won't be editing any wikipedia entries for fear that six or seven random people jump down my throat about content and notability.Fireitup 22:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

This may be my first response or comment posted on wikipedia, but I was searching through for shows on WMFO on wiki and I came across Dante and the Brick and the Fire it Up programs. I respect what Dante and the Brick do, I believe they are a fresh face to the usual stale talk/music that is WMFO weekdays. As for the Fire it Up program, they talk some damn good sports regarding the Boston area. These guys have talent and people should catch on to the popularity. Check out their website at fireitup.bravehost.com, you'll see that their show is significant and has a following. There, that's my concerns, if you have a problem with that, then stop being a friggin policeman of the internet and get a life. Go worry about something else.JHA30 06:38, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

To answer each objection to this page in turn: 1. It is not an advertisement. Neither WMFO nor the personalities in question will in any way profit from the inclusion of this article in Wikipedia. 2. The information is verifiable. The WMFO website notes the show and time slot and information about the shows exist in student publications which are archived. The show's prior episode may be reviewed at the station website. 3. The entry is notable. The show originally in question, Dante and the Brick, and the show incorporated by the "geek patrol", Fire it Up, are or were broadcast over a large geographic area with at least the potential to reach a large number of listeners. Both can be listened to from around the world through itunes and the WMFO website. It is uncontested that WMFO is notable, therefore the flagship shows carried should be considered notable as well. 4. The show is "encyclopedia notable". This phrase must be read as applicable to Wikipedia rather than less inclusive encyclopedias. This article provides only verifiable facts regarding a single unambiguous subject. It provides a definition of a radio program that is useful to anyone searching for this information. 5. It is not a "vanity" post. Neither personality's proper name is given and the actual broadcast likely reaches a significant number of listeners regardless of this entry. 6. There is little possibility of misdirecting a reader. There is no competing 'Dante and the Brick' entry and users searching for "Dante" or "The Brick" will realize it is not the information they sought upon cursory examination of the article if not at the search screen. Finally the consequences of deletion far outweigh the consequences of allowing the information to remain. The availability of information about this program is notable and useful to listeners, potential listeners, and any other information seeker. Dante and the Brick offers a unique type of talk radio in its market and Fire It Up offers a unique perspective on boston sports. The Boston talk and sports radio markets are both significant and crowded. The low probability of misdirection shows that there is virtually no consequence to allowing the entry to remain. For these reasons this post should not be deleted. —the preceding comment is by JourneyRocks - 23:31, 17 September 2006 UTC: Please sign your posts!

User's first edit. William Pietri 00:39, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh so because it was the user's first edit, it should not be considered? Is this user not notable because he hasn't had 1 million edits on Wikipedia like those in the cyber geek-squad? What he said was right, come on now! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.18.43 (talk • contribs)

• "User's first edit" is not a notable comment. It should be deleted.Fireitup 16:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Hi. notability does not apply to talk page comments. No insult is indended, but this is a process to determine community consensus. Although we hope new editors become part of the community, most newcomers who start in these discussions turn out to be single-purpose accounts. We still listen carefully to the arguments and evidence provided by new users, but the closing admin may weight community members more heavily than temporary visitors. William Pietri 16:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Who IS said closing admin? I thought this was a community decision...Fireitup 17:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

• At some point, an admin will come along and close this debate. He/she will read all the comments and decide what the community's consensus was. Cfrydj 17:20, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

The community has spoken, and I'm sorry to announce both William Pietri and Cfrydj have been voted off of this debate. Their comments are rendered useless because they have no knowledge base about the shows. Mr.T pities you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.51.45.135 (talk • contribs) Please sign your comments.Cfrydj 20:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

• I'm afraid that these sorts of comments will do little to help you keep these pages on Wikipedia. Cfrydj 20:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

• A couple questions...so first, a community member's (EDITOR'S) input is considered "more heavily" than regular users of the website? So apparently those who visit wikipedia daily but don't bother to edit pages aren't important. That is a major insult to the user base. I don't have figures, but I'd venture that less than 1% of wikipedia visitors actually edit pages. Therefore, if someone is so passionate about the inclusion of an entry that they create said "single-purpose" account, just so they can join in a debate, it means nothing? That's a slap in the face of the user base. Let this be said, those of you who have entered this dialogue, coming up with cryptic phraseology in bold face type to dismiss community statements seriously lack a funny bone. Why not engage in a lighthearted, spirited debate about these articles? Because it's a waste of time for these "editor" types. Fine, whatever, I give up, you can delete to your heart's content. But seriously, grab a sense of humor or SOMETHING or you will never, ever get laid.24.147.151.4 02:12, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi. The readers are of course important; they are why we do this. But there are many concerns to be balanced, and until you've spent some time here, they aren't all obvious. We generally welcome contributions from single-purpose accounts (and many, many people with no accounts at all). It's just that in AfDs we find that special-purpose accounts generally have a purpose other than building a good encyclopedia. Sorry if we seem cryptic or stuffy here, but with about 1000 AfDs a week on Wikipedia, the responses that seem novel and entertaining to you are regrettably familiar to us. If you spend some time working on articles where you don't have a strong personal interest you'll discover that there's plenty of fun being had. Hoping that helps, William Pietri 06:23, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Point taken.Fireitup 19:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Tons of fun being had at the expense of WMFO's finest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.51.45.135 (talk • contribs)

• 208.51.45.135's recent edit of Dante and The Brick I feel shows once again that the page is being used for promotion purposes. Oh, and could everyone please sign their posts? At the end of your comment, just insert 4 of the symbol "~" in a row. Cfrydj 19:30, 19 September 2006 (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.