Talk:The Ace & TJ Show

Comment
I'm not sure what makes a radio program notable, but this article reads very much like an advertizement. Could someone more experienced with these folks take a look at the article? --Brad Beattie (talk) 08:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

this seems like an accurate discription of the show, how else would you suggest to fix this problem? Ryn2me 14:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

also 'wildly popular' would be an accurate discription, seeing as they lead the ratings in the markets in which they broadcast Ryn2me

is the advertising tag going to be addressed or not? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ryn2me (talk • contribs).


 * Yep, I just came back to look at the talk page now. Generally, adverbs indicate a non-POV article. "Wildly popular" would be better served by actually stating the specific numbers. I'm going to try and hunt down the notability requirements for a radio show. I'll reply here within 24 hours as to what I've found. --Brad Beattie (talk) 06:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

also...i think you missed a step with nominating the article, you did not notify me like you were supposed to, since i am the creator Ryn2me 14:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

i think this is a good quality article that should remain and just should be edited to make it better Ryn2me 18:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

keep Ryn2me 21:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

If this article gets deleted then you should look at deleting all other syndicated radio shows and even look at TV shows because, seeing as how having something that is broadcast across such a large market doesn't make it notable and having formed a nationally recognized charitee, then what will Ryn2me 22:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

can't believe anyone would want to delete this because it's too opinionated...it's wikipedia, not a legitimate source of information —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.68.54.181 (talk) 15:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Acetj.jpg
Image:Acetj.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Too long/detailed
Come on it's some podunk crap syndicated morning radio show-- is this much detail really necessary? Reads like a damn advertisement. Obviously written by staff for the show or an obsessive, lame fan with way too much time on their hands. Considering how short some Wikipedia articles are on legitimate topics of academic interest, I find it a bit disgusting this is so long. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.169.174.122 (talk) 13:11, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Controversy section
April Fools' jokes? Contributing to the "bratiness" of children? This section is very poorly written and arguably not controversial. None of them are encyclopedic. I'm removing it. Dmarquard (talk) 09:27, 10 April 2014 (UTC)