Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/This is hell (radio)


 * 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 ck lostsword•T•C 00:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

This is hell (radio)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Dubious notability; likely conflict of interest (note the large number of external links). Yechiel Man 17:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC) 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sr13 10:46, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - no assertion of notability, the article is full of POV claims and unencyclopaedic prose. /Blaxthos 11:10, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fuhghettaboutit 03:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - some sources are given; but taking a closer look, there is substantial coverage in a college newspaper (not independent), some trivial mentioning (not substantial coverage), and a blog (not reliable). Clear case of COI by User:Elvisdemorrow, even admitted in the edit history, makes me doubt that the show is as notable as the article tries to put it. --B. Wolterding 23:22, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Do Not Delete - The assertion of no notability seems to be addressed with the link to the public radio quest contest in the references section. The host of This is Hell is a finalist in the competition, and people wishing to research the contestants may want as many sources of information as possible on the show, including a Wikipedia entry of course. If the concern is that the show does not exist, please download any of the hundreds of shows archived at the site or check the WNUR broadcast schedule to confirm its existence. If users are concerned about the subjective nature of the article contents then they should obviously offer constructive edits to the body of the article instead of campaigning to delete a perfectly good (albiet new!) article. --daftmunkie 18:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * First, I'm not concerned about the show being real, or about the subjective nature of the article as such. The topic of the debate here is whether the show passes the notability criteria. However, since the article was created by someone closely affiliated with the show, it is even more important than usual to have reliable secondary sources (which the article lacks). Second, your claim towards notability is the award nomination. Actually the show host is one out of 10 finalists in that competition. My concerns about that are: 1) It's the host that is nominated, not the show. 2) For the host, the guidelines WP:BIO would apply; the relevant criterion is: The person has received significant recognized awards or honors. It is not quite cleat whether the talent quest can be considered a "significant recognized award". 3) He did not win the award (yet?), he's only nominated. --B. Wolterding 18:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe your concerns are well placed given that the article was clearly initiated by somebody affiliated with the show. However, this would be more of a concern if the show was somehow for profit (It airs on a university radio station and is almost entirely listener supported) which would be in direct violation of Wikipedia's notability guidelines for organizations and companies. That said, Wikipedia is full of articles on radio programs with no independent published articles about them. Even given this disadvantage of being a small college radio program and having few independent articles about the show, a simple google search for ""this is hell" radio chuck mertz" returns approximately 1400 relevant web page hits... mostly listings on podcast directories, blog entries, and references from guests that have been on the show. To me, this is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (as per the notability guidelines). To take your concerns point by point: 1) That there is no Biography on Chuck Mertz the person is irrelevant since he is not a public person outside of the radio show, and so does not meet the notability guidelines for people outside direct reference to the radio show. 2) see 1, it is not necessary that the host be award winning to have an article about the show. 3) see 2. A purpose of wikepedia, as an outgrouth from the wikimedia foundation is "to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally." Having a wikipedia article about this radio program is in line with this mission as it gives access to all people to download freely available mp3s containing long form interviews with world renowned scholars, activists, and reporters. In light of this, it seems absurd that the article is being threatened with deletion. --daftmunkie 03:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable show on a college radio station. No non-trivial references. If the show wins the contest, it might make notability. Precious Roy 08:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Do Not Delete - Chicago Reader article now listed in references is arguably non-trivial. Also, I may be a Wikipedia amateur, but the first rule noted on the official Wikipedia editing policy page is "Perfection is not required".  Based on this official policy, it  appears evident that this entry should allowed to grow and improve as per the stated policy, instead of premature deletion. laddieo 14:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Link for Chicago Reader goes to a page on the radio show's site that doesn't even mention the Chicago Reader. And presuming a non-trivial article in the Chicago Reader does actually exist, that's only one article on the way to "multiple non-trivial" published works. Precious Roy 14:58, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 12:12, 7 July 2007 (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.