Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Mikey Show
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The result was Withdrawn by nominator. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 16:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] The Mikey Show
This article is about a morning radio show in San Diego. As far as I can tell, it is utterly non-notable. I originally prod'd it, and the prod was removed with an edit summary of, "The Mikey Show is a very popular show in a large market. How is this not notable?" by someone who has been around long enough that they should know what is and isn't notable. I was hesitant to take this to AFD, especially since I tend to err on the side of wanting to keep marginally notable articles; but really, what makes The Mikey Show different from any other popular large-market morning show? A google search for The Mikey Show KIOZ garners 362 Google hits. By comparison, a google search for Wank & O'Brien Hank (an Indianapolis market morning show) garners 9,820; but I wouldn't think they should have a Wikipedia article either. Looking at The Mikey Show's google results indicate that Mikey replaced Howard Stern on that station. While Howard Stern is certianly notable, I don't see how that would make The Mikey Show notable, and that assertion isn't in the article anyhow. The article cites no sources, and has been tagged as such since July. No one has cited sources to demonstrate notability in that time. Basically, I really hate to do this; but I have to ask... how is this show notable? How is it any more notable than its competiors on the other San Diego radio stations? How is it more notable than similar shows in other major markets? And why are there no sources in the article? ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 21:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Why is this a valid reason to consider deleting the article? It's not notible by WHOSE definition? First of all, the show is the top rated show in the San Diego area, and if you don't believe that, get your hands on a copy of the Arbitron book. Second, most of the notes in this article are from audio sources, and where the audio is not archived, how is it possible to post a link to the source? Why don't I just make up a webpage to put as a source? Third of all, this article is hardly non-notable. This very page has actually been referenced numerous times on the air on the Mikey Show. And fourth, I have saved a copy of the article, and I'm going to circulate it among every listener of the Mikey Show I know, meaning that if it gets deleted, it will be posted back up just as quickly, because neither I, nor the rest of the P1 listeners, believe that "it's not notable" is a valid reason to "mark it for deletion". You're missing the entire point of what Wikipedia is about. It's not only supposed to have "major events, people, places and things" like the Encyclopaedia Britannica - it's supposed to be a source for almost anything. SIGNED: a Mikey Show fan and Wikipedia user —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.136.248.76 (talk) 02:36, 12 January 2007
-
- Relevant policies and guidelines that should have been cited in the nomination include the guideline on notability (which you should read if you say "it's not notable" is a valid reason to "mark it for deletion"), the policy on verifiability, the guideline on what counts as a reliable source, and the no original research policy, which a quick read through the article shows the article is violating. The main, and most important aspect of notability is "that a topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself." Once it can be proven that those multiple non-trivial reliable published works exist and they are cited in the article as being the source of all information contained in the article you need have no fear of the article being deleted. The nominator is not the one "missing the entire point of what Wikipedia is about", you are. Wikipedia is about assembling information from other places in one convenient location. You must be able to say where the information came from, and off the top of your head is not a reliable source. As for it being "posted back up just as quickly," it will then fall under the criteria to be deleted as quickly as it can be posted back up. See G4 - recreation of deleted material. 68.76.222.11 04:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, —— Eagle 101 (Need help?) 21:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Not notable, as evidenced by 4 primary sources and a myspace link. Discounting content sourced from this Wikipedia article, Google reveals the same. CiaranG 00:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- This is the problem with Google searches, because I was able to find over 20 news articles on the Mikey show and its woes with the FCC and its firing, some of which I added to the page. The FCC controversy definitely makes it notable. - Ocatecir 08:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Arbitron rankings show this program as a top show in san diego [1] and is syndicated [2]. It is also notable for the controvery it raises by those seeking to censor radio [3] [4].
-
- The article has been overhauled and sources have been added regarding the controversy it causes and subsequent notability have been added. Please visit and check. - Ocatecir 08:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
- Withdrawing nomination The article has been significantly cleaned up and notability is now clearly established by the citing of multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject itself and each other. There are some facts that still need citations, and some missing info that I'd like to see added to the article in order to make it complete (such as when did he return to the air after his 2004 firing, when did he "get religion", etc.), but that's all clean-up issues; not deletion issues. Good job Ocatecir! ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 16:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
- Footnote To see the dramatic change that the article has gone through, check out this diff. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 16:02, 23 January 2007 (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.
