Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chicks on the Right


 * 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. No prejudice against creation of a redirect pointing to WIBC (FM), just not a strong enough consensus to create it as a result of this discussion. Primefac (talk) 01:24, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Chicks on the Right

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This reads mostly like an ad and does not feel to be notable enough. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 18:58, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * WARNING: This page is being outside attacked by Chicks on the Right. If you are coming here to protest, we suggest looking up the Wikipedia policies on notability and not be used as a Single Purpose Account. Link here:
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 18:58, 10 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Redirect to WIBC (FM) Pretty much a copy of their station's website bio (though with some clashes; this page's claiming they moved to spend time with their family, while the website says it's for their speaking agreements).  Nate  • ( chatter ) 21:16, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * They seem pretty popular and have some fairly well known Twitter followers. They also had a book published not too many years ago.  I think the page should stay as it is and should not be combined with another page. Alaska4Me2 (talk) 01:35, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Neither subjective assessments of popularity nor who does or doesn't follow them on Twitter have anything to do with Wikipedia's notability criteria. When it comes to getting a Wikipedia article, the notability test is the degree to which they have or have not been the subject of third party coverage about them, in sources independent of themselves, to establish that their work has been externally deemed as significant. That is, it's not established by their own writing or speaking about themselves or other topics — it's established by other people analyzing the importance of their work in the third person. There's only one source here (#2, USA Today) that meets the necessary standard, and one source isn't enough. Bearcat (talk) 15:25, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The optics of any deletion would imply censorship. Is this what Wiki wants?Oz Cro (talk) 12:16, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is NOTCENSORED, nor is it without notability guidelines or content policies. Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 19:12, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:40, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 13:42, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 13:42, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 13:43, 13 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete, without prejudice against recreation of a redirect after the history is deleted first to prevent reversion warring. This is referenced almost entirely to content where they're the authors rather than the subjects — but as I explained above, that's not how you make people notable enough for Wikipedia: you make people notable enough for Wikipedia by showing that they've been the subject of reliable source coverage written by other people. This is, of course, without prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can actually reference them over WP:GNG properly — but Twitter tweets and YouTube clips and sources where they're doing the writing or speaking isn't how you get them over the bar. Bearcat (talk) 15:25, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Bearcat, do any of these help with notability? http://centergrovemonthly.com/chicks_on_the_right/ https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/emmis-digital/chicks-on-the-right https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/chicks-on-the-right/ https://www.cameo.com/chicksontheright http://radio-indiana.com/emmis/wibc/personalities/chicks-on-the-right/ -- A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 20:17, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * No. They have to be the subject of journalism written by other people in real media outlets, not of social networking profiles or podcast content or "our programming" profiles on the self-published websites of their own radio affiliates or anything on a WordPress blog. Bearcat (talk) 18:09, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment And no...paying them to say whatever you want on Cameo doesn't clinch anything except you can pay them to say anything you want on Cameo. And if you're on talk radio...you get a podcast feed automatically these days. That doesn't say anything except 'their show is re-edited into a podcast'. As to the "optics" comment above; we regularly discuss talk radio hosts here and whether their notability allows them an article. There's no censoring going on; like most radio talk show hosts on local stations, there's only an inordinate amount of N you can get before it fades out unless you get a national show.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 00:39, 20 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Redirect to WIBC (FM): The scope of the article focuses more of the two hosts rather than the show itself. Neither of the hosts are notable. The show isn't notable enough to have a standalone article. ASTIG😎  (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 12:18, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak keep delete per (republished by USA Today but it's from an Indianapolis paper) and  (nontrivial coverage in WaPo). AleatoryPonderings (talk) 23:20, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It takes more than just two newspaper hits to get a topic over GNG. Bearcat (talk) 18:10, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You're right. Switched to weak delete per your note. Also found, but it's a namedrop. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 18:17, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   11:12, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I find it mildly amusing that you believe your site to be so important to the integrity of research that you would consider deleting this article. In case you are unaware - people use Wikipedia as a quickie overview - not a serious “notable” source. Students citing Wikipedia are cautioned against doing so as you are an open source site. Many people pop in to your site to quickly identify a name, term, etc. and this article gives the average person all they need to know to decide if/when they decide to conduct real research on the Chicks. This attempt at gravitas is laughable at best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lena464870 (talk • contribs) 13:08, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

You take down people who are politically incorrect. That’s your “deletion policy”. Wow, you should be ashamed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.32.111.254 (talk) 11:46, 25 August 2020 (UTC)


 * The above two comments are from WP:SPA. Please read introductory guides on Wikipedia and its deletion policy. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 14:29, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

This is an attempt to censor conservatives, and nothing more. There are thousands of less "notable" entities here that are not marked for deletion. The fact that you found this one and are trying to delete it proves that it's notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1012:B06D:7DAD:6524:C831:AB3B:2F21 (talk) 15:22, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * So what if that stuff exists? We'll get to those non-notable ones soon. Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:N. And please don't cast aspersions on editors by calling this an attempt to "censor conservatives".  Java Hurricane  15:34, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Comment: Just how is it that anyone who has had a radio show for over a decade, can be considered not notable by Wiki? If there are popularity guidelines, you should list them. This is pure political bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:6000:CFC0:52:6C46:9B58:15F4:C7EE (talk • contribs)
 * WP:N and WP:GNG Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 16:38, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Comment: I see no difference in the page for Chicks on the Right as I do for other similar genres.... like The Young Turks, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atific (talk • contribs) 19:04, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 19:19, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

For what it's worth and for those interested, look at the link for what has happened today as Chicks on the Right have responded to the deletion request here. They also list their credentials in regard to notability. It would be great if the people posting here would look into them and make a decision with that added information. https://www.chicksonright.com/blog/2020/08/25/wikipedia-editors-will-be-deleting-the-chicks-on-the-right-page-because-we-are-not-notable-enough/?fbclid=IwAR3eDRycpnNH_O9_0PDgMD3siSTqYFIcEE-RGRDjSK2N5QN8IHwmIv_mHAg A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 19:39, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

There are more credibility notations at another blog post today from the Chicks on the Right found at this link: https://www.chicksonright.com/blog/2020/08/25/an-atheist-feminist-gamer-from-the-daily-kos-has-responded-to-my-wikipedia-post-lololololol/?fbclid=IwAR23JoHgdIlmDG2jIiRqcaqNb4TH7ydosr_X2uI6YaecGKapl2dcQdDyyP8 A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 21:46, 25 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep. Meets GNG with significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Besides the USA Today piece already in the article (actually Indianapolis Star), there are a few other references that would seem to indicate notability:
 * They've also had appearances on a bunch of national television shows and have a robust following on social media. The article clearly needs an overhaul, but I think we have enough sources to do a decent job. gobonobo  + c 19:42, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * They've also had appearances on a bunch of national television shows and have a robust following on social media. The article clearly needs an overhaul, but I think we have enough sources to do a decent job. gobonobo  + c 19:42, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * They've also had appearances on a bunch of national television shows and have a robust following on social media. The article clearly needs an overhaul, but I think we have enough sources to do a decent job. gobonobo  + c 19:42, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * They've also had appearances on a bunch of national television shows and have a robust following on social media. The article clearly needs an overhaul, but I think we have enough sources to do a decent job. gobonobo  + c 19:42, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * They've also had appearances on a bunch of national television shows and have a robust following on social media. The article clearly needs an overhaul, but I think we have enough sources to do a decent job. gobonobo  + c 19:42, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * They've also had appearances on a bunch of national television shows and have a robust following on social media. The article clearly needs an overhaul, but I think we have enough sources to do a decent job. gobonobo  + c 19:42, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

I guess the Washington Post is not a credible third party? https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2013/07/01/fox-news-radio-guy-facebook-has-problem-with-conservatives/ Andrew S. (talk) 19:55, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The stories for The Indianapolis Star and USA today are written by their coworker so they fail independent/secondary sourcing. I couldn't tell you about Bust or Indianapolis Monthly. The Cut is by New York magazine so it passes. You got one. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 19:56, 25 August 2020 (UTC)


 * delete - aside from the SPAs above, nothing pushes this any closer to meeting the general notability guidelines. Pretty much everything is either not significant coverage or is not secondary. Personally, I find the publication making several articles about this AfD to show that they have nothing better to comment on. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:51, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

(Not sure how to do this, first attempt) Keep - the political content alone argues for not deleting. "Big Tech" (sometimes including Wikipedia) is regularly accused of liberal bias. It costs nothing to leave this page up; it costs some credibility to take it down. Wikipedia is first and foremost a source of information. Any detraction from valid information, even if it isn't very 'notable', represents a loss. If even one person is searching for CotR on Wikipedia, then this page is serving a purpose. BTW, do we have any statistics on how many people do that? Just asking. Contrary to the original complaint, the article does not 'read like an advertisement', it reads like a short summary of the career of two radio/internet commentators. As to the WIBC link - Wiki articles are full of links, internal and external. Don't see a problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rfitz3 (talk • contribs) 23:20, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

I am an annual donor to Wikipedia. I have always been a supporter of your OPEN platform as a means UNBIASED information. This is political censorship, and it’s a shame this media practice has expanded into platforms like Wikipedia. Will my lack of annual contributions be the demise of Wikipedia? No. But I will not continue to support this platform. Very disappointed... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:805:8282:9F90:20E2:296B:7F57:69B8 (talk) 23:40, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

The Chicks on the Right have been featured/covered widely by multiple sources in the 12 years they've been in conservative media.
 * Keep

These sources are in addition to the many appearances the COTR made on various major TV networks to promote their brand and book. Those appearances are mentioned in links previously listed in this discussion. Contrary to what ZeroSerenity suggested above (and what he documented in his contribution to hardleft-leaning Daily Kos where he contributes articles ), Chicks on the Right were never co-workers of the writer for the Indianapolis Star, so their stories do NOT fail independent/secondary sourcing. Political bias should not be a factor in this decision, and yet, it clearly is. And contrary to Lee Vilenski's entry above, Chicks on the Right wrote TWO articles about this AfD in order to correct Zero Serenity's blatant falsehoods. Given that there are 40,000+ articles on their website dating back to early 2009, two pieces on this topic doesn't seem to fit any reasonable criteria for showing they have "nothing better to comment on." — Mockarena (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. —Preceding undated comment added 01:08, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Delete: I could find very few independent references to indicate notability Equine-man (talk) 01:20, 26 August 2020 (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.