Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Too Beautiful to Live


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 23:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Too Beautiful to Live

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

low rated evening radio show in mid-sized market Notabilitypatrol (talk) 10:23, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Some objective evidence must be provided why this article is warranted. How do we determine if a radio show deserves an encyclopedia article about it? Surely it should meet at least one of the following criteria?

Audience Reach - Is the show in a Top 10 Market or syndicated to multiple markets?
 * radio show is in market #14 - no syndication

Ratings - is the show highly rated?
 * radio show is #15 just in its time slot (7:00PM) in-market meaning there are 14 shows above it, significantly lower in overall market ratings

Recognition - Has the show received or been nominated for national or regional radio awards?
 * no, none

Host - is the host famous for his non-radio activities (e.g. Billy Bush, Jerry Doyle, Dennis Miller)?
 * no

Longevity - is the radio show an institution due to time on air?
 * show is less than 2 years old

'''Notoriety - Did the show break an important news story? Has it been involved in significant scandal? Has it set precedent in a FCC rulemaking case?'''
 * no

Publicity - Has the show received significant coverage in significant media (e.g. newspapers or magazines with 1 million + circ or network television)?
 * no

If a radio program can't even get a green light on ONE of the above criteria, how can an article be justified? Notabilitypatrol (talk) 10:33, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Delete - I vote to delete this article. Notabilitypatrol (talk) 10:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - While I was initially inclined to agree with you; technically a topic need only meet the WP:GNG to have an article, other criteria are merely alternative not exclusive. This topic has coverage from three reliable independent sources as demonstrated in the article.  -- Kraftlos  (Talk | Contrib) 11:18, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, where are you getting these criteria? I don't see any guideline like this. --' Kraftlos  (Talk | Contrib) 11:20, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Based on the discussion that's occurred in AfD for other local radio programs, there is wiki-precedent that a more informal, or colloquial, method of judgment can be used. Notabilitypatrol (talk) 18:25, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Still, if a topic meets WP:GNG then its notable. You can't go around using some undrafted notability guideline and expect people to take it seriously.  -- Kraftlos  (Talk | Contrib) 21:10, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep, if this is to be deleted then I would prefer another user without some agenda against the subject do it (just as we prefer people without conflicts of interest to create articles). Also, Notabilitypatrol, the New York Times has a circulation of just barely over 1 million; your self-imposed criteria are clearly too strict, probably by design. You omitted the podcast popularity, which is very strong. You have apparently discounted all radio shows in anything other than the top ten markets; and your criteria for the host are utterly out of bounds, I wasn't aware we required people to be famous in more than one field of work to have a Wikipedia article. --Golbez (talk) 16:02, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: this user has a POV regarding the article. Notabilitypatrol (talk) 18:25, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If that is true then it makes two of us, does it not? I also note that the nominator has suggested users be banned for disagreeing with his AFD votes: --Golbez (talk) 18:30, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I apologize to the community for having to be dragged into this. I'm suffering WP:HA from this user that has now, apparently, spilled over into this forum as well. I regret any inconvenience this may cause participants. Notabilitypatrol (talk) 18:37, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Per Kraftlos. This show has received nontrivial coverage in multiple independent secondary sources.  That's the requirement.  The nominator's approach and criteria are inconsistent with WP:GNG and WP:Notability (media).--Arxiloxos (talk) 17:17, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * see above Notabilitypatrol (talk) 18:25, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep per Kraftlos and Golbez fuzzy510 (talk) 22:50, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I'm extremely appaled by the way you have gone about trying to go about this nomination, Notabilitypatrol, and many of your efforts in the past week on articles relating to KIRO. First on a previous nomination you launched a sockpuppet investigation against everyone who was against your opinion in the Ron & Don Show AfD, including me when there absolutely no evidence at all there was no socking, including accusing me of socking based on one vote and voting only on merits. Then you have gone and made edits to the Luke Burbank article that are in a word, appaling and easily violate BLP. Now you try to form a nomination against this show based on self-created criteria that basically say that if you're not in a Top 10 market, your show doesn't belong on Wikipedia.


 * I am voting to keep this show only on the merits of notability and reach. It doesn't need to be on the air for a long time. It doesn't need a profile in Time magazine. Your cite that it's the lowest rated program in its timeslot is at best a reach as you have no sourcing to the numbers and KIRO is among the top five stations in Seattle sign-on to sign-off (plus I'm getting the sense you're playing with the numbers to exclude public radio, ethnic radio and lower rated stations with formats which don't get alot of listeners). Based on the fact alone that KIRO is at least making an effort to program an original local radio show in primetime in a major market that doesn't revolve around a music countdown, syndicated or pre-recorded programming is notable enough, plus the promotion and distribution of the show via podcasting and social networking. The article has been much improved since I last read it Tuesday evening and features good references now.


 * What I suggest to you is if you feel gets are getting heated, to walk away from the article for a few days, settle down and keep your cool. Nobody is harassing you or stalking you at all. We vote on the merits of each individual article, it is not to spite you. Editing at times can be a tenuous process and I can even admit to feeling stressed out over my editing at times. But at the end of the day, it's just a project. Don't get stressed over this, please.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 01:29, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * DELETE ... article is superfluous as long as there is an article about the host ... the two could easily be merged - WHY IS THIS ARTICLE EVEN EXIST? also, what's up wtih all the personal attacks just because someone has nominated an article for deletion - there is room for disagreement and discussion - you people need to grow up ... 207.102.78.164 (talk) 01:49, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Personal attacks? I don't see any here, are people yelling at each other on their talk pages?  Anyway, the merge discussion doesn't need to be held at AfD; it can be discussed after this discussion is closed.  This should be a keep because it meets WP:GNG, period.  -- Kraftlos  (Talk | Contrib) 04:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * DELETE - yeah, right, WP:GNG establishes a requisite of SIGNIFICANT COVERAGE --- an article in a little weekly newspaper in Tinytown, USA could never meet anyone's idea of SIGNIFICANT ... I'm not saying, as the originator claims, that SIGNIFICANT = X# circulation, however, clearly some little weekly rag with a 50,000 circ doesn't meet an objective definition of being a SIGNIFICANT source ... and I see a lot of personal attacks here 207.102.78.164 (talk) 06:18, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Um, the Seattle Times is a daily newspaper with 215,000 weekday circulation with Seven Pulitzer prizes. Seattle Magazine has monthly distribution of 70,000 and has an established reputation.  Its true that The Stranger is a far-left weekly rag, but it's only one of three sources.
 * It's disingenuous to go for the weakest source and build an argument from that. And belittling Seattle as "Tinytown, USA" is not a valid argument.  Now where are these personal attacks?  Let me see an example.  -- Kraftlos  (Talk | Contrib) 08:28, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, please note that the word "significant" in WP:N refers to the coverage, not the sources (ie not circulation). -- Kraftlos  (Talk | Contrib) 10:32, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Just checked the Seattle Times website --- they have an article on a Wildlife police officer named Tom Sharped. Based on the criteria you've just stretched to fit your definition I'll be making a wikipedia entry about him really damn soon. --- http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008798596_poachers01m.html ...
 * How bout the reference to the show from Ira Glass on This American Life?

207.102.78.164 (talk) 16:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * User: 207.102.78.164, based on your comments so far, and assuming you are unfamiliar with Wikpedia policies, I would request that you please have a look at the following: WP:CIVILITY, WP:POINT, and, with respect to theseWP:CANVASS--Arxiloxos (talk) 19:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * if you're not able to address the content of my point don't simply resort to flood templating - it's rude and non-productive to this discussion ... THANKS 207.102.78.164 (talk) 19:49, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * By the way, while Kraftlos is correct that large circulation is not a requirement for a reliable source, it may be appropriate to note that as of June 2008 The Stranger had audited circulation of 89,535.--Arxiloxos (talk) 19:55, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info Arxiloxos! Actually, its not rude and it's very relevant that you're canvassing users that you think would be sympathetic to your opinion.  It's not an honest way to participate in AfD and its a violation of policy.  BTW, I've never listened to the show.  Just because I'm from Seattle doesn't make me biased; actually the fact that I studied Journalism in Seattle would mean that I'm pretty well versed in the reliability of local sources.  To address your point about the wildlife officer, topics can be notable and still have a consensus against article creation; it seems to me like you're invoking a slippery slope falacy, erroneously making a dramatic argument from imagined consequences.  You also seem to have something against Seattle, but your prejudices are really not relevant to whether or not the subject is notable, you need to keep your opinions to yourself and deal only with facts of the matter at hand.  Finally, keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a democracy, so the number of votes on this page is not the determining factor, its the quality of the arguments that are made; so getting other editors here that agree with you probably isn't the best way to make your point.  -- Kraftlos  (Talk | Contrib) 23:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Good info for everyone here, User:Kraftlos I can't defend 207's actions in canvassing sympathetic editors so I won't try, but he may have been inspired by Arxiloxos doing the exact same thing. Arxiloxos left this message on the Talk of Golbez, who has stated he is a member of the article topic's fan club:
 * If you aren't already doing so, may I ask you also to keep a watch on the related doings at Luke Burbank? Most obliged,--Arxiloxos (talk)
 * I'll be happy to monitor Arxiloxos and Golbez for additional policy violations if the community likes and lodge complaints and requests for investigation as appropriate? I'd rather not, though, as I'm currently being wikistalked by User:Golbez, so if someone else would be open to volunteering it would be much appreciated. Thanks, gang! - 00:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Notabilitypatrol (talk • contribs)


 * Delete: Insufficient independent 3rd party coverage. JamesBurns (talk) 06:29, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * "'Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject directly in detail." --WP:N  All three sources cover the subject in detail.  None of the sources on the page are affiliated with the radio station or the show.  How is this insufficient?  -- Kraftlos  (Talk | Contrib) 08:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Radio station appears to have a limited market. Maybe if this was a nationally syndicated program it would be different. JamesBurns (talk) 02:17, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * KEEP TBTL has big following on itunes, with many listeners outside the Seattle area.
 * There is no guideline that states Wikipedia only has articles on notable nationally syndicated radio programs. Any topic that passes WP:GNG can have an article.  Is there a particular reason other than its lack of syndication?  -- Kraftlos  (Talk | Contrib) 02:50, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Kraftlos - at this point it's very clear you're not substantively adding to this discussion. Simply dismissing everyone's well-versed arguments for deletion as "incorrect" because they don't meet your reading of the WP:GNG guidelines is only serving to stack your position by chasing off everyone who disagrees with you and flooding this page with words tagged to your UserID. I would, politely, for the good of wikipedia, ask you consider taking a few steps back from this article at present and consider engaging your talents with another topic. Thanks. Notabilitypatrol (talk) 03:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Suitably referenced and well-written article. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 16:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - Just out of curiosity, why did go from posting a "Great Job Working Together, Gang!" message on the talkpage on Feb 24, to nominating its deletion on the 28th?  It seems a bit strange, there doesn't seem to be a logical progression for his rapid change in opinion.  -- Kraftlos  (Talk | Contrib) 00:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello User:Kraftlos - prior to Feb. 24 the article in question suffered two things (1) it was 4 pages long with two source citations and read as a fan club article, and, (2) the topic of the article may have exhorted his fan club to "patrol" the article which resulted in a spate of vandalism from first time users and the posting of many "cheerleader" statements. Thanks to myself, User:Orangemike, User:SoWhy and many others, we were able to cull it to its current length of 4 sentences and add acceptable citations. This was done at great tribulation to ourselves as, in my case, I suffered death threats being posted by fan club members to my userpage, User:Golbez (a member of this topic's fan club) is now personally wikistalking me, etc. However, I think if anything it has steeled our determination to make sure wikipedia is not denegrated to fan club forum.


 * To your second question, on further evaluation I simply changed my mind and came to the new opinion that it does not merit a wikipedia entry at all. Thanks for your inquiry. If you'd like additional information from the sordid back-story of this article, please don't hesitate to contact me personally. Notabilitypatrol (talk) 00:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If you are going to continue accusing me of wikistalking, then bring formal charges. If not, then it's clear you're only using these baseless accusations to further your goals. As for the fan club, I am not nor have I ever been a member of any fan club pertaining to TBTL, Luke Burbank, or the greater Seattle-Tacoma-Burnaby Metroplex. --Golbez (talk) 01:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * (1) I prefer not to bother the admins with these petty, personal issues you may have. I have asked you politely not interact with me and am content to leave it at that. (2) Are you going to stick with that line or do you want me to drag up the link to where you said you are a "TBTL 11"? PLEASE - stop lying. There is a record of everything on wikipedia, these fibs just distract from the conversation, and serve to confuse and befuddle. (But, I imagine, that's your intent in furtherance of your very obvious and transparent objectives.) [I apologize to all the well-intentioned people participating in this important discussion. I have never seen such a concentrated attempt to manipulate and sew ill-will in my time on wikipedia as what has occurred as a result of 2 users and numerous socks here vis a vis the article in question. I am at a complete loss as to why they are doing this and how truly crass one's agenda can be to generate such a disruption here.) -- Notabilitypatrol (talk) 01:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * An "eleven" is the significant other of a "ten". It has absolutely nothing to do with being a "member of a fan club". As for socks, again, cite your evidence, or shut up. I note your last sockpuppet investigation was closed as being laughable. --Golbez (talk) 02:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, okay - convenient how you didn't mention that oh so distinctive connection, huh? You're the BF of a fan club member (the same fan club who have left death threats on userpages of those who disagree with them and engaged in mass vandalism of the article, I will add). Intersting you didn't feel the need to mention that until I pointed it out? As for socks, here's just one example of one of your fellow fan club members getting blocked for socking: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Radiocop. There are more, just let me know how many you want to see. I also notice in the edits, yet another newly registered user tried to vandalize the article today! What is wrong with the members of your fan club (or the members of the club of spouses of the fan club, if you prefer)? Also, appreciate you felt the need to continue with your well-established pattern of personal attacks (to wit: As for socks, again, cite your evidence, or shut up. I note your last sockpuppet investigation was closed as being laughable.) Thanks. Notabilitypatrol (talk) 03:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, now I think we've entered the realm of personal attacks. I'd like to remind all of you to remain WP:CIVIL and if you have an complaints against a specific user, please take it to the appropriate channel.  -- Kraftlos  (Talk | Contrib) 01:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I should like to remind you and your compatriots of the same thing. Especially your pets User:Golbez and User:Arxiloxos, since they're among the biggest violators here. Notabilitypatrol (talk) 03:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Section Break
Status of the Discussion - It looks like the votes are about tied: delete versus retain. As Kraftlos pointed out, however, it's not about votes it's about the merits of the points. I judge the merits of the delete voters to be superior in this discussion but - in the event anyone disagrees - am happy to accept the binding decision of a mutually acceptable third-party. Perhaps we should discuss a possible candidate now? (no socks or disruptionists in this convo, please) - Notabilitypatrol (talk) 01:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment as it stood the vote was 3 for Delete, 6 for keep at the time the above comment was posted Goldman60 (talk) 03:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply, though I think it stirred things up more than it helped. I think that despite the history of this page, it can still be maintained as an encyclopedic topic.  If you're tired of policing it, I can take help out.  I've added it to my watchlist and I'm going to rollback anything that gets added without a source.  We also can talk about merging if the article doesn't get better in a month or so.  At this point, since it meets WP:GNG, I don't think deletion is appropriate, nor do I think we have a consensus for deletion.  -- Kraftlos  (Talk | Contrib) 01:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you'd be real impartial considering you've been working overttime to nit-pick every commenter here until you manage to chase them away, and simply don't respond to cases where the fan club complains about a P&P violation that they in fact have been doing themselves (see above: re campaigning). BTW - simply repeating "it meets WP:GNG" over and over again doesn't make it true. It does NOT meet WP:GNG. Notabilitypatrol (talk) 03:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know anything about your WP:HA and frankly don't care about your dispute. It doesn't have anything to do with this article.  You (or any other delete voter) have yet to give me a convincing argument from the inclusion guidelines as to why this doesn't meet them.  Until you directly address my points, I'm going to be forced to bring it up, over and over.  Because you're aren't engaging my points, you're just repeating the same line over and over. This is an AfD, I expect that we would discuss notability since those are the grounds that this proposal has started on.  -- Kraftlos  (Talk | Contrib) 03:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * And you have not (1) bothered to directly address any of our points, or (2) give us a convincing argument. If you think a good way to prevail in an argument is just to spamflood the page I guess you win. I have no interest in continuing this conversation in light of such poor behavior by the self-crowned King of Wikipedia. Goodbye. Notabilitypatrol (talk) 03:50, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - still no evidence of notability outside its own small media market. If this were a Seattle or Washington-state wiki, that would be sufficient; but as it is, this simply is non-notable content. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  02:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This claim doesn't hold water. There is no requirement for national attention.  Just coverage in reliable independent sources, which has been demonstrated.  -- Kraftlos  (Talk | Contrib) 02:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Depends on what you deem "significant coverage", I guess. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  02:40, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This is not as subjective as you might think: WP:N says "'Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject directly in detail."   It doesn't have anything to do with profile of the sources themselves, just that there's more than a passing mention.  We have three feature-length articles in reliable sources on the topic.  Its notable.  -- Kraftlos  (Talk | Contrib) 02:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - You're making this up as you go now. As was stated above by another user, the Seattle Times today covered a random wildlife agent in detail. Does he deserve a wikipedia article? No. The criteria exist but they require people to THINK and use common sense. Not just pound on a drum until you've managed to deafen and chase everyone away. Flooding this page with copy-and-paste arguments targeted against every single person who has the audacity to disagree with you belies the underlying fallacy of the no-delete argument. Notabilitypatrol (talk) 03:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Excuse me? That is most certainly not an assumption of good faith, what exactly are you accusing me of?  The text I'm quoting is right in the guideline, haven't you read WP:N?
 * With regard to the Seattle Times, it is a large metropolitan newspaper with a long history of fact-checking and has received multiple Pulitzer prizes for their coverage. I'm not sure what method you're using to determine a sources reliability, but hearsay is not a valid method.  Nor is stating that because they chose to do a profile on a wildlife police officer that somehow its no longer reliable; every city newspaper does profiles, What's your point here?  -- Kraftlos  (Talk | Contrib) 03:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * "substantive coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, of notability. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not suitable for inclusion." To me, this is the kind of topic which a reputable local publication may cover in detail without rising to the level of notability on a national scale. If one of these articles were from a non-local publication, that would be another matter altogether. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  20:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions.  — Kraftlos  (Talk | Contrib) 03:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Previously you said nothing mattered, as long as it was published. Now you're trotting out the Times' Pulitzer Prizes. If you believe the former, the latter would not be necessary. So can we now discount the Stranger because it has no Pulitzers? Don't bother replying. Since you haven't had the courtesy to direclty address any of our arguments and your apparent goal here is to simply spam-flood this page until you overwhelm and exhaust everyone, they give up and you get your way, I'll have no further part in this discussion. It's obvious we can't outargue the self-crowned King of Wikipedia. Goodbye. Notabilitypatrol (talk) 03:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Kraftlos won. I wasn't previously aware there were winners or losers in wikipedia, that we were a collaborative community, but I was wrong. Kraftlos, by sheer volume of posts and argumentum ad nauseam "won" this AfD discussion and I forfeit and withdraw my request for deletion on behalf of myself and the other thoughtful, well-versed participants who were kind enough to contribute to this discussion. I regret User:Kraftlos did not choose to be one of them. I regret that this type of bullying is allowed to exist on wikipedia. I regret Kraftlos was allowed to achieve this shallow and cardboard victory simply by shouting down everyone insted of presenting a valid argument. Thank you. Notabilitypatrol (talk) 03:59, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, cool. Let's do this again sometime, next time with a little more civility.  -- Kraftlos  (Talk | Contrib) 04:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Evidently notable according to our guideline. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep What is this reasoning; are we running low on disk space? --  Chzz  ►  10:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep As Kraftlos pointed out, it meets the guidelines.  D r e a m Focus  16:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I can site a multitude of articles that warrant no national notability (such as articles about schools, Local TV stations, extremely tiny towns, Railroad Stations, restaurants), illustrating that a subject needs notability, but it has to be no higher than notability at a local level. Though some portions of the article may not be notable enough, it seems that the subject of the article has sufficient notability to have its own article.  Its not like we are running out of hard drive space or anything like that Goldman60 (talk) 03:47, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly, just because a subject is only of interest to a small number of readers, doesn't mean it shouldn't be here. This isn't like a newspaper where space is limited.  The only requirement is that it has coverage in reliable independent sources so there can be some objective information to put in the an article.  -- Kraftlos  (Talk | Contrib) 06:14, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - the article references coverage in reliable sources which address the subject in detail as the primary subject of the article. That meets the primary notability criterion. -- Whpq (talk) 14:15, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per significant coverage in reliable sources, with no prejudice towards a merge to Luke Burbank, which can be discussed on the relevant talk pages. DHowell (talk) 21:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - I vote to delete this article. The precedent was set when KISW's The Men's Room's page was removed. awbitf (awbitf) 21:16, 3 March 2009 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.232.43.242 (talk)
 * Strike out user name - there is no such user. -- Whpq (talk) 22:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep well sourced and clearly notable article. Local notability is notability.. and we're not talking about Pixley here... it's Seattle.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 22:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as this article as it stands now is well-sourced, easily clears the verifiability and notability article, and while acknowledging that notability cannot be inherited it is a show hosted by a notable person in a major American market. I hesitate to plumb the depths of the drama above but purely on the merits this article is an easy keep. - Dravecky (talk) 06:40, 4 March 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.