Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Live Wire Radio

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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. Apparently this AfD wasn't transcluded onto a log correctly, but presumably with positive effect. +1 wikis for everyone. slakr\ talk / 02:34, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Live_Wire_Radio

AfDs for this article:
Live_Wire_Radio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reasons: 1. Article was created, and has only been contributed to, by a person who appears to be a publicist or producer for the entry in question (see Talk page for details). 2. Article has only one source - the "Live Wire Radio Show" official website. 3. Article has a notability dispute that has been not addressed for one month. Background: This appears to be a very lightly syndicated, once-per-week, radio show. Prior to making this nomination I have attempted to locate RS for it been have been unable to do so. The entire entry was previously moved to userspace by Tokyogirl79 but article creator [publicist or producer for show] unilaterally moved it back without changes or improvement. Intent: The page is currently not encyclopedic. While it might be able to, eventually, obtain encyclopedic quality, it appears there is no one other than PR staff of the show interested in writing it and it lacks easily identifiable RS so will languish in the realm of promotion if allowed to remain. I suggest article be deleted and we welcome its organic reconstitution in the future when RS exists and unaffiliated people express an interest in it. BlueSalix (talk) 00:07, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:27, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:27, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In regard to the PR-rep written (and subsequently abandoned) stub that has been AfD'ed by me, I note that the first 12 posts to the subject's website's "press page" (linked above) contains the following: 1 press release from the show's publicist, 8 links to non-RS blogs, a dead link to the Portland Tribune (after searching the site I can't find the original article, if it existed), a link to Willamette Week that is not about Live Wire and doesn't even contain the phrase "Live Wire," and a story on KGW-TV. I didn't check beyond the first 12 chronologically ordered links on the "press page," so maybe it got some RS press many years ago, but as of now I see 1 piece of RS coverage (KGW) in 3 years. I see a radio show that airs for one hour every Saturday in a handful of small markets. I see an article created, and only contributed to, by the show's PR rep, and apparently abandoned. BlueSalix (talk) 18:38, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not temporary, and if you bother to look at all the press page links (and not just the first 12), you will see multiple scanned articles on the subject in PDF files from various reliable outlets. To reiterate, article quality is not relevant in terms of notability. There are plenty of non-notable subjects w/ articles; likewise, there are plenty of notable subjects w/o articles, or w/ poorly written ones. The issue here is about the subject's notability, not its article's quality. Levdr1lp / talk 18:59, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Notability requires significant coverage and proof that "his was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity." At your suggestion, I've drudged through this 1-hour, weekly radio show's press page and found - hidden beneath the scores of blogs and Facebook pages - 3 possible RS', all grouped into a short timeframe, and nothing for years since, nor years before. For that reason I believe this POV-violation article contributed by a Public Relations agent for the program is not notable. In any case, we're obviously at loggerheads (which is okay) and should agree to disagree and let the AfD run its course so others can enjoy an opportunity to participate in the discussion. Thanks, Levdr1lostpassword! BlueSalix (talk) 23:16, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what press page you're looking at, but the one I've linked to includes at least twelve (12) reliable sources from media outlets independent of the subject; each of the twelve is on the subject of the show or its producer [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12] (the last two are via Wayback Machine as the original links are no longer currently active). That's "significant" enough for me. And to reiterate, the stretch of time argument is irrelevant -- notability is not temporary. WP:NTEMP Levdr1lp / talk 01:51, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(1) In keeping with PG that says RS "must be verifiable" I don't consider transcripts typed-up on MS-Word that purport to be from the Oregonian to be RS, particularly when I can't source them on the Oregonian's website (scans, I suppose, are acceptable, though only because this seems to be a reputable [albeit not notable] broadcast program ... newspaper "scans" were used to create the Slenderman hoax), (2) of those that are not transcripts typed-up on MS-Word, and are semi-RS (the couple of scans), I've already explained why I do not consider them to establish notability, namely, notability requires proof that "his was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity." A small smattering of chronologically fused, incidental mentions in semi-RS sources do nothing to assuage this concern. As I previously stated, we're obviously at loggerheads (which is okay) - you support maintenance of this POV-violation advertorial article created by the show's PR representative and I do not - and should agree to disagree and allow others to have an opportunity to input so a keep/delete decision can be efficiently concluded. Thanks, Levdr1lostpassword! BlueSalix (talk) 04:29, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're reaching. The twelve reliable sources listed above range from 2004 to 2013 -- more than "small smattering" of historical coverage. And I find no evidence the typed-up PDF transcripts are false or misleading. Example: Luciana Lopez transcript PDF compared to Luciana Lopez post at OregonLive.com. The scanned article argument is downright absurd. BTW, here's additional OregonLive.com (Oregonian) coverage from 2013, 2009, and 2008. Levdr1lp / talk 05:10, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
While I am not going to respond to your selective responses above, I trust an independent review by other editors who participate in the AfD discussion for this advertising-inserted PR article will verify my previously stated positions. I'm choosing not to respond, not as a capitulation to your position, which I have stated I do not believe is valid, but because continuing this tête-à-tête for the sake of getting in the last word is not productive, as I've twice said. We have both made our points; it's time to give others a chance to weigh-in. Also, I would kindly ask you do me the courtesy of not calling me 'absurd' and make the choice to extend to me the same level of civility and respect I've shown you. There is absolutely nothing so important about advertorial PR-cruft articles generally, or this one specifically, that warrants name-calling. Thank you. BlueSalix (talk) 05:18, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Your argument re: scanned print articles is absurd, not you. And if there's a particular point I have neglected to address, now is the time to specify what that point is. I have no reason to end my participation in this ongoing discussion -- I welcome continued dialogue from you and other editors. I can only assume your unwillingness to continue on is, in fact, some sort of resignation. Levdr1lp / talk 05:29, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:47, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 02:35, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, when you say "NPR stations across the country," per their website, it's actually only syndicated to 4 NPR stations, all in small, small markets, plus an additional 8 community radio stations (volunteer run stations; the radio equivalent of public access TV). A Prairie Home Companion, your other example, is syndicated to more than 400 (four hundred) radio stations. As for your note that the Oregonian has covered the show "732 times" -- as you also noted, these are all calendar listings, PR-inserted events notices. Per our notability policy: notability is not established as "a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity." If we allow "hundreds" of calendar listings to establish notability, we'll also need to allow into Wikipedia carpet stores, local community theaters, and the Henderson family of Des Moines' monthly garage sale, all of which make heavy use of calendar listings. BlueSalix (talk) 10:55, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just out of curiosity, how exactly did you select these "random" editors? Levdr1lp / talk 21:04, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I selected them using the Random User feature (skipping those who had a blank or nearly blank user page, however, as well as those whom I recognized or who had userboxes or cat tags that would have indicated an interest in radio or Oregon related topics). You are free to compare my edit history against the selected users to verify there has been no prior interaction between us. BlueSalix (talk)
Thank you. I wasn't aware of such a feature. Levdr1lp / talk 23:00, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but QUALIFIED I was randomly selected for a view on this page. I have no connection to the editor who requested my input. As it stands the page has obviously been created by someone who has a COI, that said, I agree that what is listed has been presented with a NPOV, and in a professional way. I think that this article needs a lot more fleshing out before it should rank for inclusion on Wiki. There are literally thousands of radio stations across the USA, and tens of thousands around the world, and so the number of radio shows is huge. I think there needs to be something a little more special for inclusion, and with just one point of reference that is slim here. I think that without further notability being established, and more links to back it up, it should be deleted. If there is more notable information then I would change my view. Just my two cents! BerkeleyLaw1979 (talk) 03:38, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Usually I wait to re-write an article in AfD until the outcome is clear, but it is clear that the first of the randomly-solicited extra voices did not read the above discussion but instead just looked at the article as it previously stood. I have therefore added a further four sources that support the existing claims and place the rising national profile of this show into context. These are all reliable sources that are independent of the subject and provide significant coverage, so the article subject clearly passes WP:GNG. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:43, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, the third source you added - the Seattle PI - actually doesn't mention the show at all, it's an article in the radio column of a newspaper about the current host during one of his past jobs before he was affiliated with "Live Wire." So I'm not sure that contributes to notability. The other four are all grouped around a single date, in the radio columns of the same 2 local newspapers. This doesn't seem to meet the spirit of requirement of multiple sources and significant coverage, certainly not depth or breadth of coverage. In any case, since mid-AfD discussion additions are apparently okay now, I've gone ahead and also clarified in the PR representative-created article its reach (6 NPR stations on a tape-recorded/delayed basis). BlueSalix (talk) 10:53, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The fact this show is syndicated on a tape-delay/recorded basis, as opposed to a live simulcast, is not nearly as important as the fact it's syndicated at all. And I think it's already well established that this articles's creator has some connection to the show, both here and on the article's talk page. Levdr1lp / talk 13:49, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's pretty significant. It doesn't take much to be syndicated in off-hours, or over the midnight shift, when stations need content to fill space in low-listener periods. This indirectly speaks to the program's notability ... that, and it's only syndicated on 6 NPR stations in teeny-tiny markets (versus 400+ for Prairie Home Companion). BlueSalix (talk) 14:03, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't very significant at all. We're trying to determine if there's notability (there is), not how much. No one is comparing this to All Things Considered, nor should anyone assume a show must rise to that level merely to be considered notable. And I wouldn't call Cleveland a "teeny tiny market" (it's either "Large" or "Medium" depending on which source is used); Live doesn't appear to air on a weekly basis there, but local WCPN has aired the show on a semi-regular basis since at least 2011.[13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25] The last time I checked, Northeast Ohio is nowhere near the Pacific Northwest. Actual affiliates include stations in Seattle, Indianapolis, Pittsburgh, and Salt Lake City -- it would be inaccurate to call these metros "teeny tiny" as well. Levdr1lp / talk 15:02, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, an hour of airtime on a recorded basis on the overnight shift in Salt Lake City is not something I consider all that notable. As for your list of ideastream.org links you just plastered this discussion with again - I've already addressed those in our previous interaction and don't feel they need to be addressed again. Thanks. BlueSalix (talk) 17:47, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Which is all completely irrelevant to AfD (or should be). We have a policy that tells us if an article should be kept: substantive coverage in independent, reliable sources. This is a technical question, not one of personal feelings about the subject. Are there such sources for this show? Indubitably, yes. This discussion only continues by ignoring these cites to Daily Oregonian, Portland Monthly, KGW, etc. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:23, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed it's irrelevant - I was addressing what was brought up by others, not me. As for "cites to Daily Oregonian, Portland Monthly, KGW, etc." let's cut the marketing spin in this AfD and keep in mind there is no "etc." ... it's actually "cites to Daily Oregonian, Portland Monthly, KGW" period. Not the depth or breadth of coverage required to establish notability. After digesting everyone's good points in this discussion, I think I'm changing my delete motion to delete followed by a thorough WP:SALTing, given its likelihood of recreation by the PR agency. BlueSalix (talk) 04:26, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Where are depth and breath of coverage referred to in WP:NOTE? I don't see that as a criterion. I see "significant coverage," "reliable {sources}," "{secondary} sources," and "independent of the subject." Are you claiming that Daily Oregonian, Portland Monthly, KGW, and Seattle Post Intelligencer are not all of those? I'd find it amusing if you tried to bring the Oregonian to WP:RSN and a non-reliable source. So, again I say, on technical merits, this subject meets the notability guidelines for an article. Nothing in WP:NOT disqualifies it, either, and no claim has been made here that it does fit under WP:NOT. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 06:12, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll, again, kindly ask you omit the marketing spin. As you know, and as has been pointed out to you, Live Wire Radio has not been covered by the Seattle Post-Intelligencer. Your argument should be able to stand on its own, you don't need to create the appearance of additional sources to try to capture the opinion of casual respondents this thread by citing non-applicable references or inserting words like "etc." following a total list of the 2-3 references that actually exist. As to the rest of your question, it's been address elsewhere herein, it doesn't need to be retyped. Let's also try to keep it civil and not refer to each others opinions as "amusing" and "absurd" as the two show fans have been doing in this AfD about this PR agency-created article. Thank you. BlueSalix (talk) 10:40, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And again, I'll even more kindly as you to never again mischaracterize my arguments as spin of any type, much less marketing. I have no connection to Live Wire Radio, Oregon Public Broadcasting, National Public Radio, or any other such entity. Implying I do is an egregious breach of WP:AGF, and I'll thank you not to do it again. As to the Seattle P-I, it does cover the host of the show, and is therefore a valid reference. As for "the rest of the argument,"(as you put it) no, you haven't "covered it", you've ignored and dismissed it with no more than a wave of your virtual hand. You have never stated why a subject that is supported by multiple, independent, reliable references is somehow exempt from the WP:GNG except by invoking variations of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 13:24, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that's quite enough. I really need you to dial it down a little. This is an AfD discussion, not a death penalty hearing. Four people have expressed their opinions as to why the PR rep's article needs to go, you and another person have expressed why you think the PR rep's article needs to stay, and I think we've had a good discourse. Let's just leave it at that. Thanks. BlueSalix (talk) 17:58, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak delete invited randomly. Does not appear to be notable. All refs linked or that I found in my own searching are either relatd to the show, or obviously routine coverage. No prejudice for recreation in the future if better sourcing is available (I would recommend AFC as the route taken to avoid issues). The only redeeming issue would be a claim for inherent notability by being syndicated, but per the comment above 4 stations does not seem to be worth it. Gaijin42 (talk) 03:14, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[26][27] These refs listed above does count towards GNG, find 2-3 more of this level (preferably from a source outside oregon, or at least not the same publications) and I could be persuaded to change my !vote to neutral or perhaps weak keep. Gaijin42 (talk) 03:17, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just to clarify again, the show is not nationally syndicated. There are 274 radio markets, it is heard in 14 of them (8 on small, volunteer-run radio stations). Also, all the claims of the show going "big time" and replacing Garrison Keilor are quotes from the show's production staff talking to hometown media, not statements by otherwise RS. We shouldn't assign notability to a subject because the subject itself claims it will eventually be "big one day." Once it becomes big, absolutely, let's recreate the PR agent's article. However, self-esteem or confidence of future success doesn't contribute to notability. BlueSalix (talk) 16:53, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The degree of syndication across the US is certainly a concern. I have, however, brought reliable sources to the conversation here, ones with dedicated coverage, ones that have not yet been used as references in the article. I believe the topic meets WP:GNG and should be kept. Binksternet (talk) 17:20, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I think it's been made painfully clear by the nominator that the article's creator has some connection to the show. It should also be clear to anyone reading this discussion that there doesn't appear to be any blatant non-NPOV content present in the article. If anything, I think this discussion's nominator is displaying more of a bias against the show than the article's creator is displaying for the show. And since when does a radio show have to make it "big" to be considered notable? I thought notability was based on the level of coverage from reliable, independent sources-- not whether a show is syndicated, not the number of affiliates, not the type of syndication (live or tape delay), etc. Levdr1lp / talk 18:44, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article reads like a public relations piece, including this "... Live Wire is one of a number of small shows that sees itself eventually growing to become its replacement." Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Also, Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion: "Information about companies and products must be written in an objective and unbiased style". This article is not objective and unbiased: it looks like it was written and extensively edited by a publicist. Delete it and start over if this radio program indeed becomes notable: unfortunately it is too soon for an article about this small radio show (not nationally syndicated and only broadcast in 14 of 274 radio markets) to be on Wikipedia. - tucoxn\talk 03:33, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great points. It should be noted that part of the reason it reads like a PR piece is because the show's PR agent wrote it. The article was then moved by Tokyogirl79 to his sandbox to work on and he simply recreated the article sans changes. If I thought it would pass muster, I would also call for this entry to be WP:SALTed to discourage and deter future WP:GARAGEBAND stunts like this one. As it is, I'm happy to compromise on a simple deletion. BlueSalix (talk) 16:39, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article has grown considerably since Trentfinlay's last edit in October (Trentfinlay is the so-called "PR rep" referenced above; to address any COI concerns, I added the {{Connected contributor}} template to the article's talk page, and I posted the standard COI notice on Trentfinlay's talk page, both nearly a month ago). The largest single contribution since Trentfinlay's last edit comes from Eggishorn, who has already denied any connection to the show whatsoever. In any event, article quality is not an argument for deletion, but rather improvement. The only relevant question here is whether this subject has received sufficient coverage from reliable, independent sources (it has). Levdr1lp / talk 19:48, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Great point. We definitely need to focus the discussion on the show's lack of depth or breadth of coverage in RS and not the fact it was written as a WP:PROMOTIONAL / WP:GARAGEBAND article by the show's PR rep. My last comment was a little off-topic and I apologize for veering us off-course as this is already a bit of a rambling AfD. BlueSalix (talk) 05:44, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To reiterate, the bulk of the article's content has *not* been added by Trentfinlay, the user identified as having a connection to the show. Most of the text and sources were added after his last edit in October. So, again, it would be inaccurate to say the article is a PR piece in its current state. It may have been started by someone with a conflict of interest, but that issue has been addressed ad nauseam, both here and at the article. Levdr1lp / talk 06:08, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For sake of keeping things a little less exhausting here, I'm happy to let you have the last word on this one, if you like. Thanks! BlueSalix (talk) 06:51, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to bother addressing that last statement. :-) But in all seriousness, I welcome additional input (not the same re-hashed "PR" talk) from you or any other editor. Levdr1lp / talk 07:01, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hallett, Alison (August 21, 2013). "Luke Burbank Named Live Wire's New Permanent Host". Portland Mercury.
  • Hallett, Alison (August 25, 2008). "Saturday's Live Wire". Portland Mercury.
We've established, above, that there are a lot of calendar-listing and news brief-type blurbs from Oregon's two little newspapers about LWR and I, as one of the majority of delete supporters, don't deny that (it also doesn't move me from Strong Delete). Please, let's not list all of them here, though, or this AfD will get out of control. The consensus position among delete supporters is that 20 million blurbs in the Portland Mercury doesn't establish notability so shotgunning these out into the thread just makes things confusing. Thanks. BlueSalix (talk) 15:24, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I presented these two because they contained dedicated coverage of the show rather than staccato "calendar-listing"-type entries. I disagree with your characterization of these two sources, and I strongly disagree with your attempt to shut down the presentation of more sources. This is a discussion about deletion, and every single source discussing the topic in depth adds incrementally to notability. Binksternet (talk) 17:26, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
...And who do you think you are, presenting yourself as the arbiter of "the consensus position among delete supporters", especially when the notional consensus against "20 million blurbs" is patent exaggeration. I think your blustery tone is a poor strategy, that it is not helping your cause. Binksternet (talk) 17:34, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see your two sources, Binksternet, and I raise you one more: Live Wire! Radio: Behind the Dial -- 04/30/13 via the Stumpton Coffee Roasters blog. There's also this image from a book on Sherman Alexie, and at least three different Portland tourist publications which reference the show.[30][31][32] Levdr1lp / talk 19:53, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
After a couple of day's break from following this, I see {u|BlueSalix}'s massive mischaracterization of sources continues. Again, I would love to see what might happen if you started a reliable source debate over "Oregon's two little newspapers." I think the Oregonian's 220,000+daily circulation in print alone qualifies it a as something much more. The simple question of why the subject of everything called for in the GNG doesn't deserve an article remains unanswered.--Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:49, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, Live Wire was covered in the Stumpton Coffee Shop blog. Well, maybe I need to rethink my position on this whole GNG question. BlueSalix (talk) 00:20, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't used the word "arbiter," nor any synonym for it, at any point in this discussion. My specific wording was "as one of the," which is absolutely correct - I am one of the supporters of the delete position, just like you are one of the supporters of the retain position. This is a fairly routine AfD discussion on a PR rep's article, not the Nuremberg Trials. Could we maybe dial it down just a little bit? Thanks. BlueSalix (talk) 00:26, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If anyone needs to "dial it down", it's you. Someone offers a differing viewpoint, and you compare it to being put on trial for war crimes. Sometimes you're going to encounter editors you don't agree with. Sometimes things don't go exactly the way you want them to. Get used to it.
While the coffee company blog entry alone may not establish notability, it is does add to the overall amount of coverage which does (as do the book sources you conveniently overlooked). And, yes, we're all very aware that the article was started by someone w/ some kind of connection to the show -- just as we're all aware the article in its current form, particularly after Binkerstet's recent additions detailed below, has little in common w/ Trentfinlay's original version. Levdr1lp / talk 03:26, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't think "Sometimes things don't go exactly the way you want them to. Get used to it." is a constructive contribution to this thread. Based on the majority of support for delete, it appears we have a building consensus for deletion of this article. Not a consensus yet, but a building one, however, it's not necessary to engage in campaign tactics like "Sometimes things don't go exactly the way you want them to. Get used to it." Wikipedia editors make judgments on evidence, not on who can shout the loudest that their "side" is "winning." There are no sides here, we're all here to collaborate on improvement. Thanks, Levdr1lostpassword! BlueSalix (talk) 05:47, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter how often you repeat "thank you" -- it won't diminish the hostility you've shown towards editors w/ differing views. You've aggressively confronted each and every editor who disagrees with you, increasingly with a sarcastic and belittling tone, while generally ignoring those who share your views. You don't like that roughly half the editors here have expressed reasoned, policy-based arguments against your stated position. You don't like what you read, so you try to mock and distort your way around it. So, yeah, I meant what I said. Get used to the idea that you're not always going to sway every editor you come across in this community. Levdr1lp / talk 06:55, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Levdr1 - I really do need you to calm down a bit now, AGF and stop lobbing accusations at fellow editors. It doesn't contribute to a collaborative environment. Thanks so much - I really appreciate it! BlueSalix (talk) 07:24, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To be perfectly honest, I could care less what you need. And there's very little about your approach to this discussion that I appreciate. Levdr1lp / talk 16:04, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All I can say is I'm sorry my opinion in this AfD has upset you so much and I hope you can make the choice to, perhaps, reconsider the tone you've chosen to use in your above comment. I don't believe I've done anything to deserve that. Hopefully we're all here to improve WP, not draw blood or score gotcha! moments. BlueSalix (talk) 20:07, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Oh I couldn't possibly get upset over something as trivial and ridiculous as this. But bored? Yes, I am definitely bored to death over it. As for your opinion, it's perfectly fine. It's your overall approach that needs work. No editor deserves to be subjected to condescending sarcasm, belittling, and mockery, just because he/she happens to disagree with you. Keep pretending otherwise, though, if that's what you need to do. Levdr1lp / talk 20:20, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop. Thank you. BlueSalix (talk) 20:31, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. I'll stop when you do (unless directed otherwise). Levdr1lp / talk 20:32, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Doubled in size, new sources

I have expanded the article with new sources, rearranging it into sections. The expansion doubled the article's size, even with the removal of the mostly non-notable people who are involved with producing the show. In their place I added a section listing the notable guests. I'm certain there are more notable guests that can be placed in that section, with more details added in prose form such that the reader will understand better the nature of the show. Binksternet (talk) 02:20, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank goodness for the Portland Mercury, I guess! If it weren't for all that coverage in the community paper we'd still be stuck with the PR rep's promo piece! (I also question where a town councilmember in little Portland, Oregon constitutes a "notable guest" on Wikipedia, or some of the other "notable" guests.) Great effort but I gotta keep my Strong Delete on this one. BlueSalix (talk) 05:42, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you noticed my heavy reliance on Current magazine published in Maryland, all the way across the country from Portland. That helps bring the notability up and out of the local and into the national arena. You'll also notice that I brought in The Business Journal magazine from 2005. Other sources I used were Portland's About Face magazine and the Portland Tribune. This little radio show got a lot of press. Binksternet (talk) 07:06, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
BlueSalix-- Still aware that article was created by user w/ COI. Still no evidence that his contributions were from a non-NPOV. And, yes, article is still much larger and more fleshed out than at the time of the creator's last edit in October. Levdr1lp / talk 07:17, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The topic easily passes WP:CORPDEPTH. Concerns about promotional tone can be addressed by copy editing the article. Source examples include, but are not limited to:
 – Cheers, Northamerica1000(talk) 21:31, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for providing this very thorough feedback, Northamerica1000! It's great to see this all succinctly organized; I may think about changing my own opinion on this after reading your post. It really helps contextualize everything to get this all in one place. BlueSalix (talk) 07:27, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - My comments have been addressed through edits to the article and the extensive sources provided by Northamerica1000, especially the article from the Current journal (these should be included as external links or sources in the article or on its talk page). Some of this hassle could have been averted if the article had not been created and edited by a paid advocate. I am striking my earlier !vote. - tucoxn\talk 01:17, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, Tucoxn; Northamerica1000 has addressed my concerns too in a gracious and direct manner and I'm striking my vote as well and moving to Keep. BlueSalix (talk) 07:34, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm glad to see that Tucoxn and BlueSalix have come around (though I think we could've all done without yet another not-so-gracious slight, Blue). Northamerica1000 deserves credit for organizing those sources convincingly in a simple, easy-to-read list. Considering how long and bloated this discussion had become, I was already thinking of doing the exact same thing -- Northamerica just beat me to it! :-) I think it's still worth noting, however, that every source in that list was already linked in the discussion above -- every single one. In fact, if I didn't know better, I might think BlueSalix was striking his vote merely because he could see which way the wind was blowing. Regardless, I'm glad to see this unnecessarily long and drawn out discussion finally come to an end. Levdr1lp / talk 15:00, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retract some statements in the interest of WP:EQ. Credit to Binksternet. Levdr1lp / talk 17:28, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed - Northamerica1000 deserves a barnstar for salvaging this article from the clutches of the AfD machine. BlueSalix (talk) 20:41, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's right, it's 100% credit given to Northamerica1000, despite the fact that Northamerica1000 added 74 bytes while I was the one who more than doubled the size of the article with 6,118 bytes added, bringing in a bunch of new sources, organizing the text into sections, deleting a list of non-notable production people, and supplanting that with a list of notable guests. Yay Northamerica1000! Superb effort. Binksternet (talk) 00:31, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you're saying you also want me to give you a barnstar, Binksternet, I'm busy contributing to WP and don't have time at the moment to give out prizes, however, I hereby give you permission to pick a barnstar out, sign it with my name, and put it on your page, if you like. Pick any barnstar you like; you know, whatever. BlueSalix (talk) 15:17, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Nominators points long since overcome. A pause and a fresh nomination would be needed, if people still think this still needs to be deleted. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:10, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Thanks to Binksternet and Northamerica1000 for the improvement of the article and all the sources. I think the article fits with the primary criterias (multiple independent sources covering the topic). --Deansfa (talk) 23:43, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Live_Wire_Radio&oldid=1140115759"