Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Wild Wild Westmar 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 delete. I'll be happy to provide the deleted article's text to anyone who asks. If I'm not here, another admin can do it. KrakatoaKatie 22:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Wild Wild Westmar Show

The Wild Wild Westmar Show (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Appears to be a non-notable internet radio show. Notability concerns have been dismissed with the addition of a single internet based report on a regional media website. I have been unable to find mentions in any significant, reliable sources, let alone coverage that indicates notability. SiobhanHansa 17:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

You really have no idea what you're talking about, Sirhan Sirhan. It's extremely sad that some of you have nothing better to do than to judge people's reliability and notability with regards to entries in a pretend encyclopedia that is desperately trying to make itself "notable" and "reliable". This page has been up for nearly a year and I worked my butt off on it along with some help from a few others. While the show's feed is broadcast through the internet, it is internationally syndicated on AM and FM stations in both the U.S. and the U.K. It's not an "internet radio show". Just because it hasn't been mentioned in Time Magazine, doesn't mean it's not "notable". Sure, I've seen other entries of lame, made-up shows and stations. People try that kind of stuff. But you're messing around with the wrong show. Give me some credit. The page is good, and you know it. I'll see what i can do about getting the LA Times to do a story on it.

I do, however, apologize for "dismissing" the notability concerns. I was unaware that i was supposed to continue putting links on the page and wait for the "God Of Wikipedia" to dismiss it. It would be nice if, instead of trying to flex your fake muscles on a fake encyclopedia about what you deem as a fake radio show, you do a little more than just "googling" the show name to deem it "non-notable". Why don't you take a listen to the show and decide for yourself if it's "notable" or "significant"?

There are so many things I could say, but you Nancies have already made up your minds so what's the point? Herbert Arthur 18:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

    • If you really want the article kept, add reliable sources that actually support the facts stated in the article. Throwing tantrums isn't going to help your case any. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment. The article was created (by you) in April of this year, so it's hardly been "up for nearly a year". I'd also suggest that you peruse WP:NPA. Deor 18:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Listening to the show could not tell me if it were notable. It might tell me that I think it's excellent, but it doesn't tell me anything at all about its notability or significance. There are plenty of talented people and great ideas that don't get the attention some of their less good brethren do. I watched for some time as others brought up the same concerns and you dismissed them without addressing them. I hoped you would provide more, but when you did not provide anything to verify your claims, deleted the tags that would have encouraged others to work onthe issues, and I couldn't find anything myself, there weren't many other routes to go. If there is evidence to verify the show's notability - even its national syndication over the air if coverage is truly significant, then personally I'd be inclined to change my mind. -- SiobhanHansa 18:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:WEB, WP:V, also apparently a WP:COI case (see this edit). As far as I can tell, we don't even have an article on the station this show runs on. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, like that would make a difference.

I have seen far sloppier and unreliable pages on wiki than this one. You guys really need to pick and choose a little bit better before going after articles for deletion. But hey, whatever. Have your fun and if the hard work on this article goes to waste and you end up causing it to get deleted, I hope it helps you sleep better at night. Herbert Arthur 18:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a compelling argument. Please add reliable sources if they exist, and the problem will be solved. Please read and take to heart WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. bikeable (talk) 18:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to use that as an argument, Einstein. Seriously, "reliable sources" for a radio show? What are "reliable sources" for a radio show?? There are like 30 stations listed in the article that air the show every week. Sounds reliable to me. Like I said, you Wanna-Be's have already made up your mind...Herbert Arthur 18:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Well, let's see: the The Howard Stern Show article has 53 references, among them the New York Times, Time Magazine, Wall Street Journal, and other national publications. A radio show needs to have reliable sources, just like any other article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

You know, ladies...maybe you can explain to me the NEED for the sources. It seems to me you're calling me a liar with regards to this article. I worked extremely hard to keep things neutral from day one and you're still throwing it under the bus. In one breath you tell me that if I am "too close to the show" (whatever that is), I shouldn't be writing about it. In another breath you're telling me that the show isn't important enough for me to write about it unless I can show it has been mentioned in some major publication. You guys have way too many complicated guidelines here. Oh well...whatever.Herbert Arthur 18:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment Reliable sources would be most likely to be reviews or interviews with Westmar about the show printed in notable websites or magazines. Possibly a reliable, independent ratings listing or other comparison with other radio shows. what it isn't is a bunch of fans saying how good the show is. Our need for sources is in our verifiability policy which requires sources as a form of due diligence, since we are trying to be an encyclopedia, not simply a place where people write about stuff they like. -- SiobhanHansa 18:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) It's not that hard to understand: I could write the most authoritative article about myself, but I am not a good source to write about myself because a) I am probably biased, and b) I have plenty of access to information that cannot be checked by anyone else. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Being able to double-check information is fundamental. No one is calling you a liar, but without verifiable sources the information in wikipedia is utterly useless, so yes, it is a guideline we stick close to. I am amused, incidentally, that you seem to think that "ladies" is a clever insult. bikeable (talk) 18:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete -- the article cites nothing to establish notability that meets the requirements of the Notability Guideline. Zero hits when I searched Google News and Google News Archive. Since Google tracks 4500 different news media sources, this show seems to be flying under the radar. If someone digs up something that fixes this, then I'm certainly willing to change my "delete". --A. B. (talk) 18:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Searching The Kansas City Star's archives back to 1991, I find nothing for "Wild Wild Westmar" or "Brad Westmar" -- must be pretty obscure not to make the local newspaper. --A. B. (talk) 19:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Searching the local alternative newspaper, The Pitch, I did find a letter to the editor from Herbert plugging the show after the paper failed to include it in their article on local Internet radio. Nothing else, though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by A. B. (talk • contribs) 19:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
During said letter to the editor, Herbert rather amusingly admits the show is "being broadcast in someone's basement". Speaking of amusement, did anyone else notice that Herbert has admitted being associated with the show here on Wikipedia but didn't see fit to mention that in his letter to the editor? Oopsies! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I've already discussed my affiliation with the show in another spot on wiki. I am NOT affiliated with the show in the regards that you are thinking. I made a mistake in another spot.

I find it amusing that Wiki doesn't want people AFFILIATED with a subject to write the article, but they also don't want FANS of the subject to write the article. Who else is there!? Ridiculous.....Herbert Arthur 19:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete. No independent sources to establish notability. Cap'n Walker 18:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Blah blah blah blah. Which one of you put the "fan site" tag on this now? Could you please point out to me where there is any "excessive trivia and irrelevant praise, criticism, lists and collections of links." Herbert Arthur 19:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's good to see that at least some of you guys (and girls) are doing some fair research on the subject. I will say this, when this is all over with I am going to go on a crusade to have ALL radio show pages flagged and/or deleted that don't have "notable sources" listed. I can't thank you people enough for setting me straight with regards to this matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Herbert Arthur (talk • contribs) 19:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete NN, also if kept the article needs to be massively rewritten, right now it;s little more then a trivia list. Ridernyc 19:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, Ridernyc...I'll begin my own crusade against other pages just like this one very soon. I modeled this article after a few others that are still up and running. But I'll put an end to that! Then I can become a part of the team! Herbert Arthur 19:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

If you flag non-notable pages in a tactful way, it would be very helpful. You can use the {{notability}} template. Just don't disrupt things to make a point; we've got a rule about that, too (WP:POINT). Thanks, --A. B. (talk) 19:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, don't worry. It will be tactful and legitimate. Several sections of this article are modeled after two or three other radio show entries on Wiki, including the Show Segments part that Ridernyc is calling "Trivia". Herbert Arthur 20:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I again would like to ask whoever flagged this place as "fan site" to explain where there is any ""excessive trivia and irrelevant praise, criticism, lists and collections of links." Herbert Arthur 19:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

the entire show segments section is trivia, as defined by WP:Trivia. Ridernyc 20:08, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow! I'm flattered by all of the people that are so passionate about this. But I must say I didn't need a bunch of Wikipedians to tell me I am "non-notable" - I already knew it. B.Westmar 23:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Media references aside, what exactly makes a show "notable"? You mentioned The Howard Stern Show as notable. I've listened to Howard for years and I can't say there's a single thing that stands out. Does having porn star guests regularly qualify as notable? Hours of filler fluff (granted that the show is on daily for several hours,this is to be expected, but for Howard it reaches new heights) makes it notable? Shock factor? What show doesn't try to be edgy these days? This just seems like an illogical example in every way. It's a show you listen to while you're busy with something else and you're not willing to devote your full attention. Shouldn't innovation in segments be a major criteria?

I'm sorry, I'm just not grasping what exactly you're asking from them other than "give me a call when you make a front page"... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Absintheur77 (talk • contribs) 06:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC) Absintheur Superieure 06:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

read WP:NOTABILITY Ridernyc 07:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there's not a lot of "outside the box" thinking going on about this, Absintheur77. I can admit that I was hot-headed yesterday, which caused everyone here to fire back at me. Fair enough. But surely there's a more balanced way to look at this. I've been looking at the talk pages of other radio shows that have entries similar to ours, and they are having a civil discussion about what's "notable" or "acceptable" for the entry and what's not. The problem we have here is, these people are comparing The WWW Show to Howard Stern and automatically dismissing the show as useless and worthless to wikipedia because it hasn't had an article written about it in a major publication. Sadly, that's just the way it is around here. Black or white. Nothing in between. Herbert Arthur 15:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion for closing admin Should this end in a deletion I suggest the content be userfied for Herbert Arthur, who has been the principal author. -- SiobhanHansa 20:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


From the Notability page: "This page in a nutshell: A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources". In other words, if it has extensive media coverage. Case in point; after reading the page it's still "give me a call when you make a front page". I can understand asking for media sources, I just don't believe it should be a concrete requirement in every case. The segments are certainly innovative and the execution combined with the show talent makes it notable in my book. A "Name That Tune" segment, for instance, may sound ordinary on paper, but given the guest host they utilize for this segment it makes it anything but.

Also, the individual that identified this as "Trivia"-based is delusional; this claim is as absurd as it is unfounded to any listener of the show.

On a side-note, The Opie and Anthony Show I see has an almost ridiculously long-winded page, essentially for being completely without moral standards. Controversy is in fact notable, I'm not arguing this point, but to host such a lowbrow entry and then deny a page for a show that is genuinely innovative such as this just doesn't seem right. Perhaps if The WWW Show follows suit and also makes jokes about brutally raping Condoleeza Rice to garner national attention they might have a page too... Absintheur Superieure 03:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Absintheur, don't rape anyone -- just get a good solid article (not a passing mention) about WWW in the Kansas City Star and then get in touch with SiobhanHansa about resurrecting the article. As for the problems with other articles in Wikipedia -- there are a ton! Feel free to work on these others -- just make sure you don't get obnoxious to make a point. Wikipedia is not censored so that means lowbrow content gets covered -- like it or not, we even have hundreds of pages on porn stars and unusual sex acts.--A. B. (talk) 15:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment. "I can understand asking for media sources, I just don't believe it should be a concrete requirement in every case." WP:V, which I suggest you read, is a Wikipedia core policy. Without a requirement that reliable sources be provided, anyone could add anything to the encyclopedia, true or not. Surely you see the problems that would cause. Deor 16:56, 13 October 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.