Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dave, Shelly, and Chainsaw


 * 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   keep. No !votes for deletion outside the nominator. (NAC) Armbrust  Talk  Contribs  09:23, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Dave, Shelly, and Chainsaw

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Despite the length of this article, there is no content indicating why this subject is notable. This appears to be a local radio show with no evidence of meeting WP:GNG. There are very few actual reliable sources provided, and the few that are provided appear to be insignificant mentions in local media. Searching for the show's title yields results, but most are press releases (especially about the cancellation), blog posts about the show, brief mentions, etc., that otherwise do not meet WP:RS. Most of the content is about "bits" on the radio show, other media the hosts produce, etc., and is unsourceable from secondary sources and/or unencyclopedic. Brought here as a contested WP:PROD; no reason for contesting was provided on the talk page or edit summary. -- Kinu t /c  03:55, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Longrunning radio show well known in San Diego. Tons of coverage about the show found in Reliable Sources, going back to 1992 (did the nominator actually look???). More sources should be added to the article, and a lot of the unsourced trivia could be cut, but the show is clearly notable. --MelanieN (talk) 04:44, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: did the nominator actually look??? Please, is it too much to ask to assume good faith in this nomination? Yes, I did look at the sources Google News, etc., provided. As indicated in the nomination, all I find are mentions in local media that are trivial coverage about the show's cancellation, its renewal, or other incidental coverage. Nothing that actually establishes notability of the show itself or substantiates any of the content in the article itself... just brief mentions about its demise/return, for the most part, along with other sources in which the show is mentioned. Being "well known in San Diego" does not establish notability. I fail to see how posts in the "Opinion" section of signonsandiego.com or brief mentions in other articles constitute reliable source coverage. Instead of a borderline personal attack, why not point out the reliable sources? If it is "clearly notable," then fix it. -- Kinu t /c  07:14, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, no attack intended. But when I found twelve pages worth of newspaper articles at Google News, I found that hard to reconcile with your description that "most are press releases (especially about the cancellation), blog posts about the show, brief mentions, etc." I'll see what I can do about adding more citations to the article. And I'm tempted to just WP:BOLDly delete all the trivial stuff about their running jokes and such, what do you think? --MelanieN (talk) 13:59, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Now I see what you were referring to - most of the citations IN THE ARTICLE were from blogs and press releases. I have fixed that. I rewrote the history section and provided half a dozen Reliable Sources. See if that fixes the notability problem. Meanwhile I am still considering stripping out all the unsourced trivia (which would amount to 80-90% of the article). --MelanieN (talk) 14:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I definitely concur about the unsourced trivia... it's based on primary sources (essentially listening and transcribing) and is quite unencyclopedic. If there had been some sort of commentary about the bits, bumper songs, commercial songs, etc., perhaps brief examples would be acceptable, but as it stands, that looks like content that belongs on a fansite rather than here. -- Kinu t /c  16:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. I'm going to go right now and strip it down to a more defensible article. --MelanieN (talk) 16:44, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  —MelanieN (talk) 04:46, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions.  —MelanieN (talk) 04:49, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: I still have a couple of concerns regarding the sourcing of this article: 1) The content provided at the moment can all be sourced to articles from the San Diego Union Tribune. While this is a reliable source, this only counts as one source, per se, per the third bullet of WP:GNG. This is what I was referring to by there being very little out there. After all, some of the sources mention the show (such as |+Cookie+never+crumbles+in+basketball&pqatl=google and ), but don't seem particularly relevant, especially when attempting to establish notability. 2) WP:LOCAL seems to apply as well. As alluded to in the nomination rationale, all of the available sources seem to be from local media (such as the Tribune). It would make sense for local media to write about a local radio show (especially in the local paper's arts/lifestyle section, as is the case with some of the articles), regardless of location, size of market, popularity, etc., but that really does not serve as a good indicator of notability, even with the alleged controversies about this show... perhaps local interest and/or newsworthiness. However, what makes this particular show encyclopedic/notable, as opposed to any other local radio show? That is what is unclear from the sources. -- Kinu t /<sub style="color:red;">c  15:21, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * What makes this show notable is its longevity (more than 20 years) and the large amount of outside coverage it has gotten over the years, as well as its high public profile exemplified by the rallies and public protests that occurred when it was cancelled. 1) As for the Union-Tribune, it is pretty much the ONLY WP:Reliable Source publication in the area that maintains an archive online. The presence of numerous U-T articles by numerous different writers over a span of more than a decade would seem to remove it from the category of "single source". Google News Archive hits were also found for the San Diego Business Journal and the North County Times, but the articles were unavailable for viewing. 2) The "only local significance" point is a valid argument, and is one I myself have sometimes put forward with regard to buildings, people, etc. whose significance was purely local. I have usually lost those arguments if the subject did have significant coverage from reliable sources; even if all the sources were local or regional (the U-T is regional), the consensus has tended to be "keep". Quoting from WP:LOCAL, "Notability says: "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." It may be considered that if enough attributable information exists about the subject to write a full and comprehensive article about it, it may make sense for the subject to have its own article." --MelanieN (talk) 16:42, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * BTW I notice that there are also WP articles about the two movies produced by this group: The Trouble with Money and The J-K Conspiracy. I think these films are not at all notable, despite their listings at IMDB and their notable cameo actors, and I would have no objection if they were prodded or AfD'ed. --MelanieN (talk) 17:01, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Question I'm confused. Something at the article suggests this page was nominated for AfD before, quite recently, with the result "keep". But the nomination is not listed on the Discussion page as usual. The information is only visible when you click "edit this page;" it's part of the AfD information at the top. It says:
 * The nomination page for this article already existed when this tag was added. If this was because the article had been nominated for deletion before, and you wish to renominate it, please replace "page=Dave, Shelly, and Chainsaw" with "page=Dave, Shelly, and Chainsaw (2nd nomination)" below before proceeding with the nomination. ...
 * For administrator use only: { { Old AfD multi | page=Dave, Shelly, and Chainsaw | date=15 September 2010 | result=keep } }
 * --MelanieN (talk) 00:47, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * It's probably because I saved the AfD page before I saved the article with the AfD tag... so yes, the nomination page did exist before the article was tagged, for a good 18 seconds. -- <strong style="color:blue;">Kinu <sup style="color:red;">t /<sub style="color:red;">c  01:04, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see. So there wasn't actually a previous AfD discussion. --MelanieN (talk) 01:54, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Week keep Whenever I see an article on a radio show that includes a list of listeners that call into the show or bits that are frequently featured, its hard not see the article in a WP:FANCRUFT light and to doubt the notability of the subject. This article has a number of references to a reliable source (The San Diego Union), but what I notice there is that this seems to be the only reliable source available.  Why is that?  San Diego is market number 17 with a nearly 2.6 million metro population in the Spring Arbitron book.  San Diego print media is dominate by that paper but there are a number of community newspapers in print as well as all major television networks.  Why no coverage there, in such a large market?  Radio stations or individual shows often have relationships with print newspapers and it makes me wonder if that is why there is coverage in the Union and nowhere else.    I'd like to suggest this article be merged into the station's article but since the show has moved from station to station, thats not ideal. Unreferenced and fancrufty sections need to go (movies, frequent callers). I'd also like to see more references here from a wider variety of sources.  If that happens then keeping the article would be reasonable.
 * Regarding the San Diego Union Tribune, did you not see my explanation above? The U-T is the only regional source whose archives are online. It was not the only paper to write about the show, just the only one where you can still view the articles. Google also found articles in the San Diego Business Journal, the North County Times, and the Reader, but they are not available for viewing. As for your wondering about a "relationship", there is no connection between the U-T and Clear Channel or previous station owners. Regarding television, in my experience television news shows almost never comment on radio programming, partly because they are rivals, but mostly because TV news programs are so time-limited. I agree about the "list of listeners"; I was tempted to delete that when I deleted the other trivia (I left it because it had some minimal sourcing), and since you feel the same way I will go clean that list out as well. --MelanieN (talk) 16:01, 23 September 2010 (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.