Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jumpstart (radio show)

Add links
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 redirect to Monster Radio RX 93.1. I'm going to redirect the article, and if anyone feels content should be merged, feel free to do so. The people who are wanting to keep make no argument in defence of notability, backed up with reliable sources that the nominator made clear. I decided against an outright delete because many of the people who commented to outright delete held no prejudice to a merge. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:31, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jumpstart (radio show)

[edit]
Jumpstart (radio show) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

An article about one radio program in Manila, doesn't appear to assert any notability, or at the very least a reason why it can't be merged into Monster Radio RX 93.1? Author has already claimed he or she will "report it" if it is speedied again (whatever that means). SGGH speak! 20:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep — Tell me, why is "notability" so important? Really, the only question that is relevant is "Is the encyclopedia better off or worse off if this article is kept?" As far as I can tell, keeping factual, verifiable information in makes the encyclopedia better, and removing it makes it worse. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 20:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bzzt! False dichotomy! Ten-yard penalty. --Calton | Talk 21:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not to mention the fact that Notability is one of the core values that Wikipedia runs on... -- JTHolla! 21:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Like all so-called "policies" on Wikipedia, "Notability" is absolutely non-binding. We're expected to exercise our own judgment based on the given situation, not defer to a bunch of arbitrary and non-binding "rules" and "policies". Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 21:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Except there's absolutely nothing special about this situation that would warrant a special exception. -- JTHolla! 22:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure there is. Well, it's not "special", because it applies to every single subject, but, keeping it in would make the encyclopedia better. That is the fundamental criterion by which all actions must be judged. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 01:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yikes, I don't like your idea that "notability is one of the core values that Wikipedia runs on" - it's only a guideline. The likes of IAR, NPOV, NOR and V are far more important. Even so, this radio show is not notable and I would endorse either a merge or a delete, whichever there is more consensus for. EJF (talk) 23:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Eh...I would put Notability right up with any of those issues...except maybe NPOV. But whatever.  :) -- JTHolla! 00:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Turning Wikipedia into a undifferentiated bulletin board, directory listing, spam host, or solid mass of crap does not in any way, shape, or form make the encyclopedia better. Time to haul out the Jorge Luis Borges:
...In that Empire, the craft of Cartography attained such Perfection that the Map of a Single province covered the space of an entire City, and the Map of the Empire itself an entire Province. In the course of Time, these Extensive maps were found somehow wanting, and so the College of Cartographers evolved a Map of the Empire that was of the same Scale as the Empire and that coincided with it point for point. Less attentive to the Study of Cartography, succeeding Generations came to judge a map of such Magnitude cumbersome, and, not without Irreverence, they abandoned it to the Rigours of sun and Rain. In the western Deserts, tattered Fragments of the Map are still to be found, Sheltering an occasional Beast or beggar; in the whole Nation, no other relic is left of the Discipline of Geography.
From Travels of Praiseworthy Men (1658) by J. A. Suarez Miranda --Calton | Talk 01:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, my Speedy was upheld yesterday, hence why he remade it. I shall Speedy it again, I suppose. -- JTHolla! 21:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge Merge anything of value into the main radio station article. I couldn't find anything specifically 3rd party as a source (but I admit I didn't look hard). Also, I can't find any notability policy about radio programs to use as guideline, so I'm at a loss to know what we should consider in weighing notability. The closest thing I could find was in WP:Notability (media) where it says about satellite radio channels "Generally, individual "channels" carried by cable or subscription satellite radio are not presumed notable, as they can be added and dropped at will by the service provider." I understand this isn't an article about such a channel, but I think that the principal is something to consider when discussing local radio shows.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 21:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If the show cannot be verified by a 3rd party source, it should be deleted. -- JTHolla! 21:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I stand by my merge considering that no one is disputing the fact that the show exists and is part of the lineup of the radio station. I don't think I made the argument that this was a keep, but you don't need primary sources to prove the show is on the air with this particular station.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 21:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If so, reference it, and it's immediately notable, and verifiable, otherwise, not.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 03:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless 3rd party verifiable source appears.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 03:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge (with RD), per Torchwoodwho. --PeruvianLlama(spit) 17:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Kurt Weber. This AFD is absurd on its face. I'm not even going to go into details of why I believe it's so ridiculous, because it's self-evident. That such things could even be nominated for deletion on this, the greatest encyclopedia of the world, which aims to encompass all subjects notable (and this subject is clearly notable), and that others could embrace the suggestion that it's non-notable, as though marching lock-step behind the nominator, is beyond my ken. Please, we must be independent thinkers here; we must not simply go with the crowd and be taken in by such foolishness. I have nothing further to say about this. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 22:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note The above user is currently involved in a debate regarding vote canvassing at AfD and has copied this same statement to multiple active AfDs. [1] --Torchwood Who? (talk) 23:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (or Merge, if anyone wants to) per Calton. From the sound of it, it's a perfectly ordinary radio station broadcast. Even if there are sources I would still think we shouldn't cover this as its own article, unless it has much more importance than is being described here. Mangojuicetalk 11:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jumpstart_(radio_show)&oldid=1137961403"