Talk:The Free Beer and Hot Wings Show

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 8 April 2008. The result of the discussion was keep.

Contents

[edit] Promotional?

This doesn't really read like an encyclopedic article, more like a promotional page.

The above doesn't really read like a comment, as it is missing a signature and was also short of a title. The page as of today is objective, does not make any claims or express any opinions except those made known during the show by the members or listeners. I think it is very fair and a good reference for the show. ByteofKnowledge 20:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
The page isn't up to standards, as much of it runs on about uninformative topics (i.e. name that tune). We should focus on current segments, or at least segments that are regular parts of the show on a weekly basis (I haven't heard celebrity name game for a while, yet it has one of the larger entries). Is it really necessary to mention show segments in the first place? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.74.28.10 (talk) 17:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edits by the show

April 8th, 2008 approximately 07:30am EST
The Zane and Joe Show have been making fake edits to their own Wikipedia page as part of a comedy segment for their morning talk radio show.
They have also discussed and encouraged others to edit the pages of celebrates on Wikipedia. Which was an excellent suggestion. Way to go boys! —Preceding unsigned comment added by HantuDuppy (talk • contribs) 13:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually it was quite stupid, don't worry though. I reverted all their crap and got the page protected. Why these guys think it's funny to vandalize wikipedia I don't know....It's not original or funny. Lil' Dice (yeah, I said it!) - talk 14:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not much on this whole wiki thing so I apologize ahead of time for any kind of lack of etiquette. I am pretty sure they encouraged the whole thing because previous placements of a wikipedia page were dubbed "not notable" by the community and put down, thus they are to the point in which they could care less if people undermine something like this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.151.21.101 (talk) 18:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I've edited this page since it creation and I edited the old one before it was deleted. I believe that these guy are notable and the reason there is old info is so if they talk about something like "The wheel of Yo Mama" you know whats going on. You must know the history of the show to understand what is going on.-Computergeek1507 - (talk • contribs) 20:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Why is there nothing about What can Zane do? You should fuck the page to include the stuff they do weekly (including Dumber than Joe, What Free Beer Thinks, Sportier than Thou, etc.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.213.182.187 (talk) 19:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

If it is not being covered by reliable third party sources then it cannot be included. Material which is included within Wikipedia articles should not be trivial and needs to adhere to our high standards for verifiability. Something happening one day on a radio show does not necessarily make it notable. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 20:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
So why is it that other radio shows are able to enter things like their recurring callers without any verifying reference? Bob & Tom is a prime example. I don't listen to their show and I only find three of their numerous Wiki listed characters cited on their link(after deep searching, I might add).Anneten (talk)
It's because anybody can edit Wikipedia. Due to this fact, there can be lots and lots of pages that you can point to that violate established policies and guidelines. It exists because no one has yet seen it and cared enough to fix it. -Verdatum (talk) 19:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The wikipedia vandalizing referenced by the earlier comment goes to show the lack of understanding needed to enjoy the show. they commonly use sarcasm throughout the show, they reference doing all sorts of ridiculous things but they don't seriously intend to have their audience members do them. In reference to the not notable daily events of the show reply, the sections are not daily events but weekly bits done by the show and are part of the fabric of the show which is worthy of being part of a comprehensive entry covering the show. It is an immensely popular show and whether you like the show or not they are certainly relevent to be on wikipedia

I could care less about the show, they attempted to copy Colbert by encouraging wide spread vandalization of their article and other people's article. When that happens I'm going to protect wikipedia, end of story. Wikipedia is not a venue for them to show their scary talent, it's an encyclopedia. Lil' Dice (yeah, I said it!) - talk 15:37, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Segments and Games

I feel that the segments and games section is notable, although it may be hard publishing reliable third party sources for it. If anyone finds sources to backup the segments and games, please post it here on the talk page so we can discuss whether to add it. <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 17:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

notability (as defined by Wikipedia) is not the question, it's Verifiability. I don't think the content should be added until Reliable Sources (3rd party independant sources from a reputable author/publication) are created and sourced for the content. Especially because there have been previous public calls for vandalization to this article, I believe policies and guidelines should be followed fairly strictly. Failure to do so causes the potential for arguments of "How come we allow this 'junk' section, but you don't like my section? My section is waaaaay more important!!" which allows the floodgates to be opened, which results in a 300K long article 270K of which is potentially innaccurate original research that is only verifiable by watching the show for an extended period of time, and that serves no benefit to the average user accessing the page for the purpose of encyclopdic content. -Verdatum (talk) 22:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I got a page with third party references for the show's segments and games. If you need more, I will be willing to find them. -Beholdthecrucifixion 1:26, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

The radio station which hosts this program is not a "third party". Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 22:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

What is considered "third party" then? If it's from something else that isn't the radio shows actual website, isn't that third party? Beholdthecrucifixion 23:46, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

The meaning of "third party" is that of a neutral, independent source. Some examples would include third party reporting via a non-affiliated newspaper, magazine, journal, or book. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 21:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Holiday Break-In

If this cannot be sourced through reliable third parties I think this section can and should be removed. It reads like a bunch of self promotion and I have a problem with us, meaning Wikipedia, suggesting that local police departments are assisting with unlawful entry into the homes of other people, regardless of how "in need" they may be. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 17:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I have to disagree with you on this one also. I personally don't view it as self promotion and unlawful entry into homes. I will again try to find some sources to include. <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 17:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
That's fine, that is why I asked. My main concern is that by mentioning this detail we are providing an WP:UNDUE weight within the article if it has not also be covered by reliable third party sources. Thanks again. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 18:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Because it has no independant sources, I do believe it is a minor issue of undue weight. I don't consider it self-promotion, though I do think it feels a bit like a synthetic spin of "Bad boys with a heart of gold" (Not that such is sufficient argument for removal in my book). I don't believe us meaning Wikipedia are suggesting that local police departments are assisting with unlawful entry into the homes of other people. I think the individual editor is suggesting that, and we, don't find it sufficiently doubtable as to remove it.
I personally lean towards trimming it down to a sentence or two, but I don't feel strongly for or against any position in this case. I wouldn't be surprised if sources existed for such an act, and obviously the ideal solution would be to find such sources. -Verdatum (talk) 23:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I sent an email to the Free Beer and Hot Wings email address, at first not saying that it is being used for Wikipedia. I got an email back from Free Beer saying that he will do some searching for me. I emailed him back stating that it was actually for Wikipedia, but hopefully he will still get it.<3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 03:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)