Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Calling All Cowboys


 * 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. Michig (talk) 07:16, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Calling All Cowboys

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article about a locally produced radio show, citing no reliable source coverage to demonstrate that it passes WP:NMEDIA — until I stripped it as invalid sourcing, the original referencing here was entirely to primary (program's own website) and circular (other Wikipedia articles) sources instead of to any evidence of media coverage. In fact, it's teetering right on the edge of being speediable as an advertisement, given content like "CAC is available for rebroadcast free of charge in local markets by contacting the host" — to my eye, however, it falls slightly short of being blatant enough to earn that treatment. While the article makes enough of a claim of notability (syndication over multiple stations via a public radio network) that it would likely be eligible for a properly sourced article, no topic (radio program or otherwise) of any notability level ever gets to keep a Wikipedia article that rests exclusively on primary or circular sourcing with no RS coverage. (In addition, there's a likely WP:COI here if you compare the creator's username to the name of the program's host.) Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if it can be sourced properly. Bearcat (talk) 15:15, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:53, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:53, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:54, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Article about a locally produced radio show, citing no reliable source coverage to demonstrate that it passes WP:NMEDIA — until I stripped it as invalid sourcing, the original referencing here was entirely to primary (program's own website) and circular (other Wikipedia articles) sources instead of to any evidence of media coverage.

Evidence of media coverage by the "Washington Post", "The Bulletin" (Bend) (Central Oregon's most widely read newspaper), and by "American Cowboy" magazine has been added to the article.

In fact, it's teetering right on the edge of being speediable as an advertisement, given content like "CAC is available for rebroadcast free of charge in local markets by contacting the host" — to my eye, however, it falls slightly short of being blatant enough to earn that treatment.

Changed wording to "CAC is free and open content and can be rebroadcasted. While the article makes enough of a claim of notability (syndication over multiple stations via a public radio network) that it would likely be eligible for a properly sourced article, no topic (radio program or otherwise) of any notability level ever gets to keep a Wikipedia article that rests exclusively on primary or circular sourcing with no RS coverage.

Reliable Sources have been added to the article. Circular sourced references have been mostly deleted. (In addition, there's a likely WP:COI here if you compare the creator's username to the name of the program's host.)

There is no conflict of interest. The article author is different from the program host (and is a different person.) "Calling All Cowboys" radio program is non-profit, Charles Engel does not earn any profit currently from the radio program activities. Since there are no earnings to pay a professional Wikipedia author to write the article, I have done so, also at no cost.

To summarize : I have added many links to integrate the article into the Encyclopedia.

I have provided examples of reliable secondary sources.

I have shown that the content of the radio program is cataloged by the Library of Congress and The Smithsonian, and hence the program is educational to Wikipedia readers.

I request that the notice be removed that the article is being considered for deletion. Thank you for your consideration of my request. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allenengel (talk • contribs) 06:31, 22 June 2015 (UTC) Allenengel (talk) 05:32, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Responses:
 * (1) The show is not the subject of those articles in the Bend Bulletin, the Washington Post or American Cowboy, but merely has its existence namechecked in articles which are about other things. That is not the kind of sourcing it takes to satisfy a Wikipedia notability rule — you need sources in which the show is itself the subject of the source, not merely sources which mention it in passing while actually being about other things. And nearly all of the other new "references" you added were reinsertions of the same inappropriate WP:CIRCULAR references that I called attention to originally — you cannot ever "reference" a Wikipedia article to other Wikipedia articles. You did not add links to other Wikipedia articles in the proper format for doing so — I did, in a followup recleaning.
 * (2) A conflict of interest does not require that you personally be Charles — all you have to do is to have any direct personal connection to Charles at all. Nor does it require that you have been paid to write the article (that's certainly one kind of possible COI, but far from the only kind), or that the program be a for-profit enterprise rather than a non-profit (it's still entirely possible for a non-profit operation to have a COI, if the article is written in a promotional/public relations manner by an employee of the organization, rather than a neutral encyclopedic tone and an unaffiliated author.) None of this negates being in a COI position — in fact, by attempting to deny a COI you've essentially confirmed one, because you've confirmed that this was a personal favour to promote a program to which you have a direct personal connection.
 * (3) The fact that the genre of music that the show covers happens to be catalogued by notable institutions does not confer a notability freebie on every single radio show that happens to cover that same genre of music. If you could provide evidence that the show itself was part of those cataloging efforts, then things might be different — but the mere fact that it happens to be about a notable music genre doesn't give the radio show notability by itself, if the radio show isn't itself partially responsible for creating the notability of the music genre.
 * (4) An AFD discussion remains open for a minimum of seven days after listing (which can extend to 14 or even 21 days if there isn't enough participation to establish a clear consensus one way or the other), and the template cannot be removed until an administrator who has not already participated in the discussion deems that sufficient consensus has been established to independently close it one way or the other. In addition, your private e-mail to me was inappropriate — discussion of this type takes place in public, on Wikipedia talk pages, not in secret.
 * So no, you have not adequately addressed the issues with this article. Wikipedia is not a PR database on which any radio program is entitled to have an article just because it exists — any radio program needs to earn an article by virtue of satisfying WP:NMEDIA's criteria for the notability of media, something which not all radio programs do. Bearcat (talk) 15:47, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

(1) The show is not the subject of those articles in the Bend Bulletin, the Washington Post or American Cowboy, but merely has its existence namechecked in articles which are about other things. That is not the kind of sourcing it takes to satisfy a Wikipedia notability rule — you need sources in which the show is itself the subject of the source, not merely sources which mention it in passing while actually being about other things.

"The Washington Post" is one of the most highly regarded sources in Western Civilization. In the article, the "Washington Post" describes the program “Calling all Cowboys,” a weekly two-hour “music, poetry and old-time radio (show) with decidedly Western bent”. Is this not a definitive description of the program by a reliable source?

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/feb/3/community-radio-follow-fcc-rules-well-put-you-on-t/#ixzz3drG5fNxQ Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter And nearly all of the other new "references" you added were reinsertions of the same inappropriate WP:CIRCULAR references that I called attention to originally — you cannot ever "reference" a Wikipedia article to other Wikipedia articles. You did not add links to other Wikipedia articles in the proper format for doing so — I did, in a followup recleaning.

Thank you for your help in the recleaning.


 * (2) A conflict of interest does not require that you personally be Charles — all you have to do is to have any direct personal connection to Charles at all. Nor does it require that you have been paid to write the article (that's certainly one kind of possible COI, but far from the only kind), or that the program be a for-profit enterprise rather than a non-profit (it's still entirely possible for a non-profit operation to have a COI, if the article is written in a promotional/public relations manner by an employee of the organization, rather than a neutral encyclopedic tone and an unaffiliated author.) None of this negates being in a COI position — in fact, by attempting to deny a COI you've essentially confirmed one, because you've confirmed that this was a personal favour to promote a program to which you have a direct personal connection.

I consider the enforcement of the conflict of interest rule to be detrimental to the growth of Wikipedia information and article. I speculate that most of the authors of Wikipedia articles have some ax to grind in writing for Wikipedia. If Wikipedia were to mindlessly enforce the conflict of interest rule, I suspect that some existing Wikipedia articles would themselves violate the conflict of interest rule. With your help I have written a short factual article about Calling All Cowboys in a neutral encyclopedic tone. While some editors might consider cowboy music to not be notable, it has been part of American culture since 1850--far longer than Disco, Jazz, Electronica, and Wikipedia has articles about these programs.


 * (3) The fact that the genre of music that the show covers happens to be catalogued by notable institutions does not confer a notability freebie on every single radio show that happens to cover that same genre of music. If you could provide evidence that the show itself was part of those cataloging efforts, then things might be different — but the mere fact that it happens to be about a notable music genre doesn't give the radio show notability by itself, if the radio show isn't itself partially responsible for creating the notability of the music genre.

I am in agreement with point (3). I agree with your editing.


 * (4) An AFD discussion remains open for a minimum of seven days after listing (which can extend to 14 or even 21 days if there isn't enough participation to establish a clear consensus one way or the other), and the template cannot be removed until an administrator who has not already participated in the discussion deems that sufficient consensus has been established to independently close it one way or the other. In addition, your private e-mail to me was inappropriate — discussion of this type takes place in public, on Wikipedia talk pages, not in secret.

I sent a friendly, appreciative email to you. Email addresses are listed on the Wikipedia pages, which I presumed meant that emails to editors such as yourself are appropriate. There was no secret message in the email, no Quid Pro Quo. The content of the email I sent is virtually identical my posted response here.


 * So no, you have not adequately addressed the issues with this article. Wikipedia is not a PR database on which any radio program is entitled to have an article just because it exists — any radio program needs to earn an article by virtue of satisfying WP:NMEDIA's criteria for the notability of media, something which not all radio programs do.

Actually the program does meet the minimum WP:NMEDIA's criteria for notability of media. The radio program has been broadcast for more than 10 years. The radio program popularizes historic American culture for the 21st century American listener. You have correctly identified the program's fundamental challenge : "Calling All Cowboys" will unlikely have a major impact on popular American culture anytime soon. I sincerely doubt that cowboy yodeling or cowboy poetry will ever garner as much interest at wardrobe failures at Super Bowl Halftime Shows. :) But the potential of Wikipedia, and the internet in general, is that minor voices like "Calling All Cowboys" can be heard amongst the din, and Wikipedia's allowing factual information about the program, makes it possible for Wikipedia readers to learn about a program that weekly serves up a slice of American history. I know that we are all busy, but ppossibly if you were to take a moment and sample a few minutes of "Calling All Cowboys", you might soften your position about the program article.

Thank you for your valuable input. Allenengel (talk) 05:32, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Firstly, I did not cast any aspersions on the reliability of the Washington Post in principle. But that's a moot point anyway, because the link you just provided here is not from the Washington Post, but from the Washington Times — which is very much not "one of the most highly regarded sources in Western Civilization". And anyway, it fails to address what I actually said — which is that Calling All Cowboys is not the subject of that article, but is just glancingly namechecked in an article which fails to be about Calling All Cowboys. It doesn't matter whether the source is the Washington Post or the Washington Times or the Tinyville Herald, if Calling All Cowboys is not the subject of the article.
 * Secondly, nobody said anything questioning or mocking the notability of cowboy music in principle. But the notability of the genre does not confer an automatic notability freebie on every single radio program that happens to play cowboy music. The program itself has to be the subject of coverage which is about the program itself, but that has not been demonstrated here. You keep trying to lean on the notability of the genre — which nobody has questioned or doubted — as a reason why the show should get a special exemption from Wikipedia's content standards, but that's not how Wikipedia works.
 * Thirdly, there are contexts where private e-mail can be sent between Wikipedia contributors. Exhortations to consider withdrawing an AFD nomination, from the article's own creator, are not one of them.
 * Fourthly, the length of time that a radio program has broadcast has no bearing on whether it meets NMEDIA or not, and neither does anybody's personal assessment of the inherent cultural value of what the program does. It's reliable source coverage, in which the program is the subject of the coverage and not just a sideways namecheck in an article that fails to have the program as its subject, or it's bust. That's how this place works — notability is a question of reliable source coverage, and not a question of whether any individual editor does or doesn't like the topic. I didn't say I didn't like it, at any rate — I said that the article is not meeting our inclusion standards, which is not the same thing as having an opinion about the show. Bearcat (talk) 05:47, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, I did not cast any aspersions on the reliability of the Washington Post in principle. But that's a moot point anyway, because the link you just provided here is not from the Washington Post, but from the Washington Times — which is very much not "one of the most highly regarded sources in Western Civilization".

I will try to get to the bottom of the Washington Post/Times in a few days.

And anyway, it fails to address what I actually said — which is that Calling All Cowboys is not the subject of that article, but is just glancingly namechecked in an article which fails to be about Calling All Cowboys. It doesn't matter whether the source is the Washington Post or the Washington Times or the Tinyville Herald, if Calling All Cowboys is not the subject of the article. Secondly, nobody said anything questioning or mocking the notability of cowboy music in principle. But the notability of the genre does not confer an automatic notability freebie on every single radio program that happens to play cowboy music. The program itself has to be the subject of coverage which is about the program itself, but that has not been demonstrated here. You keep trying to lean on the notability of the genre — which nobody has questioned or doubted — as a reason why the show should get a special exemption from Wikipedia's content standards, but that's not how Wikipedia works. Thirdly, there are contexts where private e-mail can be sent between Wikipedia contributors. Exhortations to consider withdrawing an AFD nomination, from the article's own creator, are not one of them. Fourthly, the length of time that a radio program has broadcast has no bearing on whether it meets NMEDIA or not, and neither does anybody's personal assessment of the inherent cultural value of what the program does. It's reliable source coverage, in which the program is the subject of the coverage and not just a sideways namecheck in an article that fails to have the program as its subject, or it's bust. That's how this place works — notability is a question of reliable source coverage, and not a question of whether any individual editor does or doesn't like the topic. I didn't say I didn't like it, at any rate — I said that the article is not meeting our inclusion standards, which is not the same thing as having an opinion about the show. Bearcat (talk) 05:47, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, I did not cast any aspersions on the reliability of the Washington Post in principle. But that's a moot point anyway, because the link you just provided here is not from the Washington Post, but from the Washington Times — which is very much not "one of the most highly regarded sources in Western Civilization". And anyway, it fails to address what I actually said — which is that Calling All Cowboys is not the subject of that article, but is just glancingly namechecked in an article which fails to be about Calling All Cowboys. It doesn't matter whether the source is the Washington Post or the Washington Times or the Tinyville Herald, if Calling All Cowboys is not the subject of the article.

I am starting to wonder if the notability standard is applied to Calling All Cowboys, that doing so is constructive prejudice that exemplifies the digital divide that suppresses the freedom of much of rural America. I began wondering this when I was looking for categories for common Western topics like cowboy poetry, western swing, country western, cowboy yodeling, and discovered that there are very few pages devoted to these subjects, despite the topics being part of the American West, and the American Old West, for over 150 years. Compare the number of articles devoted to music of the West, or historic American music, compared to Disco, and Electronica, and Rap. You will find that they outnumber western music articles 10 to 1 if not 100 to 1.

I presume this constructive prejudice derives from the fact that the internet is largely the creation of the American Coasts, and not the American Inland West. In fact, much of the rural West still has high speed internet in name only. Reasonable in cost to the upper classes and middle classes, but costly to the poor. (In fact much of the Navajo nation has almost no internet at all, despite DARPANET going public nearly 21 years ago.)

Cowboy music, cowboy poetry, cowboy yodeling are all integral to historic rural Western life, but if the Wikipedia notability standard is applied slavishly to this article, then it means that Wikipedia will not have universal coverage of all aspects of American life. Cowboy yodeling will never rise to much importance in Wikipedia as long as the notability standard is rigidly applied to the number of eyeballs, page hits, or newspaper articles that are measured to gauge notability.

However, if you allow the Calling All Cowboys article to continue, its content demonstrates that Wikipedia is universal in its scope, at least when it comes to information about sources of moderated playlists of Western Americana, cowboy yodeling, cowboy poetry etc. For the 1 in 10,000 Wikipedia reader who is trying to find current information about cowboy music, the Calling All Cowboys article will provide that Wikipedia reader with information.

Secondly, nobody said anything questioning or mocking the notability of cowboy music in principle. But the notability of the genre does not confer an automatic notability freebie on every single radio program that happens to play cowboy music. The program itself has to be the subject of coverage which is about the program itself, but that has not been demonstrated here. You keep trying to lean on the notability of the genre — which nobody has questioned or doubted — as a reason why the show should get a special exemption from Wikipedia's content standards, but that's not how Wikipedia works.

Thirdly, there are contexts where private e-mail can be sent between Wikipedia contributors. Exhortations to consider withdrawing an AFD nomination, from the article's own creator, are not one of them.

I have no information about Wikipedia email etiquette.

Fourthly, the length of time that a radio program has broadcast has no bearing on whether it meets NMEDIA or not, and neither does anybody's personal assessment of the inherent cultural value of what the program does. It's reliable source coverage, in which the program is the subject of the coverage and not just a sideways namecheck in an article that fails to have the program as its subject, or it's bust. That's how this place works — notability is a question of reliable source coverage, and not a question of whether any individual editor does or doesn't like the topic.

Again if you apply the notability standard for the number of articles, eyeballs, or page hits, you are truncating the scope of Wikipedia needlessly. To summarize that the notability rule is how this place works, means that it works only for the number of articles, eyeballs, and page hits. Meaning that since Howard Stern is popular nationwide, his radio program gets attention from Wikipedia, because newspapers and blogs and television give him attention. I am confident that within my lifetime he will not even note a mention in some far off future version of Wikipedia, but Western rural cultural life and the lure of the "Frontier" will still be an important part of American culture.

Much of the knowledge of the old American West is unlikely to end up described on Wikipedia if you continue to promote that as the universal standard for article inclusion. Currently Wikipedia has little information about cowboy yodeling, cowboy poetry, etc.

At this time Calling All Cowboys popularizes many aspects of the old American West. Including this article will benefit some of your readers who seek information sources about the culture of the old American West.

I invite you to get a taste of Calling All Cowboys to see why its fans like the program. The program is not the Country Western Top 40-- its more like the Smithsonian, pretending that it's a music show.

I didn't say I didn't like it, at any rate — I said that the article is not meeting our inclusion standards, which is not the same thing as having an opinion about the show. Bearcat (talk) 05:47, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your insightful information about Wikipedia and for your evaluations of this pending Calling All Cowboys article. I appreciate the helpful formatting edits and I will attempt the html for these formattings in any future Wikipedia articles.

Allenengel (talk) 00:30, 26 June 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:42, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

New matter :

"Calling All Cowboys" has a similar philosophy and purpose as Wikipedia.

Wikipedia is universal in its coverage. Wikipedia provides information.

"Calling All Cowboys" provides information about cowboy music, cowboy yodeling, western swing. "Calling All Cowboys" popularizes overlooked Cowboy Americana, like Smithsonian Folkwayshttp://www.folkways.si.edu/folkways-recordings/smithsonian and similar cultural organizations. "Calling All Cowboys" makes experiencing Old Western Cowboy Music entertaining.

Not to disregard the helpful criticisms listed above, but those criticisms should be tempered by the useful purpose that "Calling All Cowboys" serves in popularizing Western Americana history.

Since "Calling All Cowboys" has a similar philosophy and purpose as Wikipedia, its article is useful to some Wikipedia readers, and should be maintained in Wikipedia.

Allenengel (talk) 17:33, 29 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete The mass of prose here from u|Allenengel is enough to put off reviewers, since few want to get involved in such a lengthy discussion. However, I will say that I looked at the references, and did some searching, and I do not find significant sources. The program appears to be syndicated, but I can't find out what syndication network handles it. If we can discover that, it may be possible to redirect to a page for that network, and provide information about the show there. LaMona (talk) 22:05, 30 June 2015 (UTC)


 * "Do not Delete"

Here are the sources cited in the "Calling All Cowboys" article.

Washington Post Article Dated February 3rd, 2015 http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/feb/3/community-radio-follow-fcc-rules-well-put-you-on-t/?page=all

Bend Bulletin Newspaper Oct 13, 2006 http://www.bendbulletin.com/news/1525243-157/the-spirit-of-the-old-west

American Cowboy magazine http://www.americancowboy.com/article/cowboycore#sthash.BW8pfQFL.dpuf

Why do you consider the sources not significant? The sources are (1) a national newspaper (2) the primary local newspaper for Bend Oregon and all of Central Oregon (3) A special interest magazine devoted to cowboy music.

It seems that we have reverted back to the notability issue again. My question is, if you rely on notability, then how do the small but significant voices that are part of American history, get noted on Wikipedia? Cowboy music, cowboy poetery, and cowboy yodeling were part of the Old West Culture, and there is almost no mention of these topics on Wikipedia. I checked for categories about "cowboy poetry" and "cowboy music" and "western swing" and the categories are empty on Wikipedia -- presumably because there are few or no articles about these topics. If you emphasize the notability rule, then topics which are part of America's old west past will probably not get enough notability from the 21st century media sources to merit obvious notability for Wikipedia.

Recently the Supreme Court ruled about housing discrimination in Community Properties, Inc. v. (Texas). They ruled actionable "actions that have a discriminatory effect even with no evidence of discriminatory intent." (Reuters) http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/06/25/us-usa-court-discrimination-idUSKBN0P51UO20150625

I wonder if Wikipedia's notability standard, when inappropriately applied, might also have a "discriminatory effect even with no evidence of discriminatory intent?" Wikipedia has grown over more than a decade to be the world's preemininent source of information, with all the fine work of its contributors and editors.

However, even after all these years, Wikipedia's coverage of Western American music is pretty skimpy. For example, they taught Western Swing at Portland, Oregon high schools, at Portland State University, and at the Mountaineers-- but I see very little coverage about Western Swing music on Wikipedia.

Therefore I request that the article be maintained, as the radio program "Calling All Cowboys" serves a similar utilitarian purpose as Wikipedia : popularizing American culture.

I invite you spend a few moments and go to the KPOV FM radio website and listen to "Calling All Cowboys". I hope that you will conclude that "Calling All Cowboys" is an article Wikipedia should allow, to continue the program's popularization of Western Americana.

http://kpov.org/kpov_show/calling-all-cowboys/ Allenengel (talk) 03:10, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I replaced the Washington Post with the Washington Times. I sincerely regret this error.Allenengel (talk) 03:53, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm going to explain this to you one more time. A radio program gets into Wikipedia on the basis of reliable source coverage in which the program is the subject of said coverage. It does not get into Wikipedia on the basis of being namechecked a couple of times in coverage of other things — Calling All Cowboys is not the subject of any of the articles you keep pointing to as your sources, but merely has its existence acknowledged in articles that are not about Calling All Cowboys. Bearcat (talk) 23:10, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I would like the editors of Wikipedia to temper the reliable source standard, and maintain the article in Wikipedia. If Wikipedia editors continue to slavishly apply the reliable source ideal, then Wikipedia will be the poorer for not including "Calling All Cowboys". Wikipedia readers will not benefit about knowing about the educational benefits of "Calling All Cowboys", and Wikipedia will continue in its inadvertent lack of coverage about Western Americana topics like Western Swing, Cowboy Music, Cowboy Yodeling, etc.

21st Century media continues to provide little coverage to some aspects of Americana. I doubt that media coverage of cowboy yodeling and cowboy poetry will increase, given that most media outlets are cutting back on staff. I wonder if the reliable sources ideal is the most appropriate criteria to apply to minority voices like "Calling All Cowboys"? I wonder if one of the potential benefits of Wikipedia is the inclusion of underreported voices like "Calling All Cowboys", and compensates 21st Century media's lack of universal coverage?

Wikipedia's editors continued inclusion of the "Calling All Cowboys" article helps the growth of the knowledge of Western Americana music.

It is my hope that the Wikipedia editors would temper the reliable sources ideal and help the growth of "Calling All Cowboys", a non-profit radio program with a philosophy and mission similar to Wikipedia.Allenengel (talk) 18:38, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:GNG- I've read all the above, and still don't believe it to be notable. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:46, 4 July 2015 (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.