Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Libertarian Solution Radio Program


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 10:45, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Libertarian Solution Radio Program

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Contested PROD. Original PROD reason was, "No third-party verifiable reliable sources. No sign of notability. The KXAM website doesn't even bother to list this as a featured program on their front page." SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. I can't find any significant independent sources for this local radio program. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:32, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Very likely brokered programming: KXAM probably doesn't have anything on it because they paid to place their show on the station, and usually disclaim that the views of the hosts are not those of the station. No sources and likely not much notability.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 05:43, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Additional comment Please also note that on the show's homepage (separate from KXAM's page), there is a an appeal for advertising. This is a hallmark of brokered programming, where the entire hour is purchased from a station by the group and advertising can be solicited by the purchaser rather than the station itself.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 23:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Retain. I don't produce it, but I listen to it and find it notable enough to include.  Unfortunately, Wikipedia has not yet developed clear, specific criteria for inclusion of anything.  So it's all just opinion and bias.  It's wrong to exclude it on the basis of being "brokered".  Without clear guidelines, I must be an inclusionist to be on the safe side and not be slanting WP. Korky Day (talk) 21:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete = I was the person who did the research to put the PROD notice on the page, so I agree with myself here. :)  There are no reliable sources available about this small radio program, and as mentioned in the original PROD notice the local station that broadcasts it doesn't even bother to put the program on its front page.  It gets just a paragraph buried in among everything the station plays, shown on an interior page.  In reply to Korky Day, we really should take into account if the program is brokered, since that means that the "radio program" is really paid for like a long commercial.  Also in reply to Korky, we have notability and more importantly verifiability rules.  This article fails both of them, and most importantly it fails the vitally important verifiability rules.  Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 22:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Retain. The show is paid for by ads. People who read only the front page seem rather trite. The station aires it so they must at least defer. Freedom of Speech is not a new concept. ( This vote was made by User:Hobbies beyond (talk); I am placing it here because the editor placed their vote in their edit summary rather than on this page. Also, this is the user's first contribution.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 23:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC) )
 * Retain. The show hosts were asked to air the show on KXAM by the station's general manager Don Sandler. He can be contacted at the station. The show's description appears at http://www.kxam.com/programs/. According to KXAM the local broadcast footprint for this show is 3 million listeners during the prime time broadcast slot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.231.37.168 (talk) 05:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)  — 68.231.37.168 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment = The people commenting about the front page status of the show, or the paid/non-paid status of the show, are failing to reply to the meat of arguments about this article, which is that it fails Wikipedia's notability and verifiability requirements. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 09:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Sooooo....from the comments below I'm guessing that (1) there are no resources that match our verifiability and notability requirements so the only response is ad hominem attacks, or (2) everyone who thinks this article isn't a proper fit for Wikipedia really is anti-libertarian? I hope that people who come to this page understand that for all you know, I am Ron Paul.  Or the reincarnation of Ayn Rand.  Or Jesus.  Come on, guys, respond to the arguments.  If you don't, you're just making our arguments look stronger.  This lack of engagement with the meat of the issue would be really bad in a discussion during the radio program...  Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 20:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you are Jesus :) I enjoyed your appeal to reason as I ask people to be reasonable all the time. I suspect you of no malfeasance (finger pointing just never works out for me) AND I am a Libertarian.  Being a reasonable man, I must point out that Notability is subjective while Verifiability is not.  This article can, for the most part, be verified.  Please feel free to ask me questions about the content of the article because, as my friend Nick noted, that which we cannot prove to your satisfaction can be removed.  Would Notability be influenced if I told you that many of our listeners are in other states around the country because we stream our shows, podcast them, and offer them as free MP3s at our website?  We have gotten calls from as far away as Maine.  Thanks for joining in this discussion.    —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardsutton (talk • contribs) 21:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem is that we can't base an article on statements from you as a person involved in the radio program (per SOURCES). Both our notability and verifiability rules are specific about what's required, and this program just doesn't match them.  I'm sorry, really I am.  I'm sure that you're fine people, but there are nearly seven billion fine people in the world and Wikipedia has decided by consensus to have rules regarding which of those seven billion people (and hundreds of millions of organizations, radio programs, companies, etc.) get to have articles here. :)  One of the biggest requirements on Wikipedia is called "verifiability, not truth," which means that we require that facts be backed up by reliable sources.  That doesn't mean that we don't trust you to tell the truth about yourself, it means that we require that the statements about you have to be written by someone in a place that has editorial control and standards.  This is actually for your defense - it means that no one can come along and write "Joe Smith is a Nazi," self-publish it on Publish America or Lulu.com, and have it show up on the Joe Smith article.  The statements here need to be from reliable newspapers, scholarly books, specialist encyclopedias...something that shows that (1) the subject has been looked at by several people whose jobs it is to separate fact from fiction and/or misinformation, and (2) the subject has been considered notable by several reliable secondary sources.  I hope this (very wordy) explanation helps explain what's happening here.  It doesn't mean that we think you're bad people or that you don't have a right to speak.  It means that the encyclopedia has to decide what to keep and what not to keep, and your radio show doesn't yet have the notability to be kept.  Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 22:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The comments about verifiability have been argued. Most if not all of the content in the article is easily verifiable with little effort.  If portions of the article are not verifiable, then feel free to contest the unverifiable portions, not the entire article.  Regarding notability, please reference the portions of Wikipedia's notability guidelines not met by the article.  Stating simply that there is no notability is not a valid argument. Nickcoons (talk) 22:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * First, I think you're being needlessly defensive here. We're not attacking you or your radio show.  Second, I have laid out my arguments in detail in several comments here.  I looked for sources, and couldn't find them, before putting the PROD notice on the page that led to this article being brought here to AfD by SchuminWeb.  The replies to our arguments so far have been ad hominem statements that those who think the article doesn't fit our rules are evil anti-libertarians, or have been statements that we're wrong with no proof that we're wrong.  Negation of our arguments isn't proof of anything.  We've had offers of direct input from the people who make the show, but can't base an article on statements from the people on the program, as stated in WP:SOURCES.  Our notability and verifiability rules are laid out in the links I gave above, and this article doesn't meet them.  I don't know what to say beyond that and beyond what I've already said.  It seems to me that you're saying is that because I'm not explaining the notability rules in more detail, that means I'm wrong.  This is a logical fallacy.  Honestly, we expect the person who closes this debate (who will be an uninvolved administrator) to weigh our arguments and we expect that person to understand the shorthand of statements like "no notability" or "no third-party sources."  I know that Wikipedia's rules can sometimes be complicated and frustrating.  I find them that way myself, sometimes.  If you like, I can explain in more detail what's up in this discussion, if you tell me what you don't understand.  Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 22:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not intending to be defensive, I just don't believe that your claims about verifiability are true, and I think it's easy enough to demonstrate. Let's look at what the article says and break it down a bit:
 * "The Libertarian Solution Radio Program is a political talk show that discusses the libertarian philosophy and its practical implementation in local, national, and world politics."
 * Is there a question as to what the show is, and what it discusses?
 * - http://www.libertariansolution.com/about/
 * - http://www.podcastdir.net/podcast-description-572.php
 * - http://www.evliving.com/2008/09/09/1236/the-libertarian-solution-launches/


 * "The program airs on Independent 1310 KXAM, based in Scottsdale, Arizona, Wednesdays at 7pm MST. It can also be heard live via internet streaming or in the audio archives at the Libertarian Solution website."
 * Is there a question as to where the show is broadcast, or how it can be listened to?
 * - http://www.kxam.com/programs/ (the synopsis here was written by the station, not the producers of the show)


 * There are also various claims about the hosts. Some of the claims are verified by providing links to the claims.  Some of the claims are not substantiated, but can be.  Others may not be substantiated by any referencable online source (such as the stated birthplace of Richard Sutton), and it can be argued that these individual claims can be removed.  But no argument has been presented that the article as a whole is unverifiable and therefore should be deleted.  Given the five minutes I spent Googling to find the above information, any argument claiming that none of the article is verifiable should hereby be dismissed.


 * I'm not asking you to explain the rules. I've read the rules.  I'm asking you to be specific about your claims.  You say there is no notability.  Surely you can point to something specific in the notability rules with which the article is not compliant in order to substantiate that claim.  Since the initial claim, that the article is unverifiable and not notable, is yours, isn't the burden on you to demonstrate it rather than just stating it?  Isn't it only after you attempt to demonstrate your claims that you can expect anyone to attempt to refute them?  Please forgive me if I've misinterpreted something. Nickcoons (talk) 23:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Our requirements are 1) Significant, non-trivial coverage (WP:N gives as an example "The 360-page book by Sobel and the 528-page book by Black on IBM are plainly non-trivial."), 2) Coverage that is completely independent of the subject of the article (which knocks out the libertariansolution.com source as coming from the source, the www.podcastdir.net link as a mere reflector of the libertariansolution.com RSS feed, and the evliving.com link as a reprinted press release that is sourced directly to you, Nick Coons), and 3) Several other requirements, but since I've now shown that the given three references can't be used here, we don't need to go through those requirements.  As to notability, you're asking me to prove a negative, and I'm not going to play that game.  The notability requirements are positive requirements - that is, they give goals that must be met.  There is no third-party who has taken notice of this radio show.  There is no significant coverage.  No one, in short, has considered this program worth writing an article or book about in the New York Times or National Review or a scholarly work about libertarian radio shows.  I did actually Google your show before putting the original PROD notice on the article, so I know what I'm talking about.  Thus, replying to your snide comment about "five minutes I [Nick Coons] spent Googling", I actually did the research before marking the article for deletion.  You don't understand our notability and verifiability rules, as shown by the three links you gave, and I'm sorry about that.  I've done my best to explain, but I'm done explaining now.  You want to know what the worst part of this is going to be?  I'm certain that someone on a friendly web forum or even in a call-in or letter/email sent to to the radio program itself is going to say something goofy like "Some guy with a rabbit-based name is trying to squelch our freedom of speech," a prediction I base on comments by other people in this discussion.   And at this point, I'm done.  I'm tired of trying to explain this. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 22:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. There may be parts of the article that are not verifiable, but it is disingenuous to claim that the entire article is unverifiable. If verifiability is an issue, remove the parts of the article that cannot be verified.  If you'd like me to edit the article to post citations for the verifiable claims, I'd be happy to (but I've been avoiding editing the article since its initial post due to the COI issue).  Nickcoons (talk) 16:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Retain = The show is notable here in the Phoenix Metro radio market among Libertarians; over ten thousand people are registered Libertarian in the county, and most are aware of the program even if they are not regular listeners. In addition, the guests on the show are often of local and regional notability. On these points, the show should meet the notability requirements under Wikipedia. As for verifiability; it is true that one of the show's founders and hosts created the entry. I would be happy to verify that the general information about the show is true and accurate. As for online, linkable sources - I can see from a review of the Category: American Radio programs will reveal that a number of them have the same verifiability problems that TLS does, in your eyes. Those do not seem to be marked for deletion. For example, Radio Home Visitor, which is a show out of Pennsylvania, has absolutely no references at all, including several unverified, unsourced claims. The Neutrality of the person who marked this particular show comes into question for that reason alone. Finally, I understand that the show does have a couple advertisers, and is not a brokered program. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.104.205.225 (talk) 16:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The fact that this article was tagged and not the other one you referenced is because someone saw this article and not that other one.  I'll go look at the one you've complained about and if it doesn't match our needs, I'll delete it.  I don't edit Wikipedia out of a political bent, although the number of people who think I'm anti-libertarian is making me consider going to clean up the grammar on the Ron Paul article and make it better just to prove 'em wrong.  :)  Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 20:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Dang, I just went to look at that article. So in a nutshell your complaint is that because I didn't mark an article about reading newspapers to the blind for deletion, I'm an evil anti-libertarian who wants to see the libertarian movement wiped from Wikipedia?  That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.  I'm done debating with you.  Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 20:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Additional Comment = There is an "Appeal for advertising" because the show needs advertising. Please source your claim that appeals for advertising are a "hallmarks" of brokered programming. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.104.205.225 (talk) 16:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Response When you buy an hour of programming on a radio station, unless you're someone who can afford it that money either goes to your cause or producing the show. It doesn't go to the staff and the only thing the station does is collect their money and hope the purchaser doesn't do anything to risk their license. The station doesn't sell the advertising, the purchaser does. That's why it meets the definition of brokered programming. Also I have no issues with the article to speak of, it's the fact that it doesn't establish notability that is my reason for wanting it deleted. I have asked for deletion for other articles on this type based on the same criteria, no matter their political viewpoint.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 05:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment = The producers of this show made an appeal on a Ron Paul website attacking proponents of deletion as "socialists" and asking people to come here and vote retain. http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=186708 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.26.202.142 (talk) 18:37, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I posted this to RPF, and I apologize for the rash judgment. I've edited my post on that forum to remove the bias, and have noted such in the post. Nickcoons (talk) 22:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment = I am one of the shows hosts so to address several of the comments made here I will add only to the information. When the show aired it's first episode we had 3 advertisers (non-host advertising).  We offer advertising on our show because TLS is a for-profit business.  Companies or individuals buy advertising, with us or somewhere else, because it is good for their business.   This should not be a surprise.  Also note that we had Ron Paul's presidential campaign press secretary on as a guest last year and we are still in contact though I have made no appeal to the Ron Paul Forums.  Even so it seems they are free to express themselves in this nation - even if not on this excellent website.  The proponents of deletion may all have many motivations among which may be a bias against the show's political content - There is simply no way of knowing (short of asking - if even that would help) so I would not, myself, suggest such.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardsutton (talk • contribs) 19:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete The arguments of those whowant to "retain" are enough reason. Local radio talk shows are very rarely notable,and there is no evidence this is different. Possible G11 speedy as promotional  DGG (talk) 01:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:SOURCE, WP:NOR, WP:COI and WP:NPOV. &mdash;Danorton (talk) 22:55, 2 April 2009 (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.