Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Morning Sickness with Eric and Harrison

Add links
From 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 delete per consensus of established editors. --Coredesat 03:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Morning Sickness with Eric and Harrison

[edit]
Morning Sickness with Eric and Harrison (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View log)

Early Sunday-morning (i.e., dead time) college radio show -- a show that the station's own Web site buries deep inside its listings. PROD tag added, but removed by anon IP with the edit summary This page is legit. The info seems to check out. "dead air" is an inappropriate value judgement that has no effect on the accuracy or legitimacy of this article.. Actually, it's an entirely appropriate value judgment, since a 2 a.m. Sunday morning time slot helps illustrate the utter non-notability of the program. Calton | Talk 06:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also adding Morning sickness (disambiguation), because once Morning Sickness with Eric and Harrison is gone, it'll be a uselee disambiguation page. --Calton | Talk 12:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Even if this show received a better time slot, it would still be just a college radio show, and presumptively non-notable. --Metropolitan90 07:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable Madmedea 13:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable.--Rudjek 18:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - otherwise i'll write an article about my own Sunday morning (8 a.m.) student radio show! Grutness...wha? 23:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm the "anon IP" and just a recent Wikipedia user. However, I am familiar with the WNUR station and do know that the station broadcasts throughout the majority of the city of Chicago with a range comparable to commericial stations. Thus, any show that airs on the station, regardless of timeslot, can conceivably be heard by most people in the city of Chicago. This would apply to any other radio program that airs overnight. Furthermore, I'm not familiar with radio, put I'm pretty sure that the term "dead time" is incorrect in this case as the show does indeed broadcast. It's not an internet podcast or private show, but rather exists on a station, 89.3 FM, that is fully accredited by the FCC (like ANY other radio station) for the Chicago region. Lastly, because there is no way to tell how many listen to the program, I see no reason not to grant the benefit of the doubt. To do otherwise would create a "value judgement" and precedent that radio doesn't really "count" after the sun sets. Many, many people in this country would disagree. 24.12.186.181 04:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep The current argument is irrelevant, according to Wikipedia's own criterion for notability: "Notable here means "worthy of being noted"[1][2] or "attracting notice"[3]. It is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance". It is not measured by Wikipedia editors' own subjective judgements. It is not "newsworthiness"." In context, this means that "Morning Sickness With Eric And Harrison" is a valid article so long as verification of its existence can be determined. Since it is publicized as part of the WNUR lineup (however obscure this is), and since WNUR 89.3 FM is an official, FCC accredited radio station (despite what may be playing on it), the argument of lack of notability cannot be backed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unillenium411 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep I don't really understand how the time of day that the show is broadcast makes a difference as to whether or not they have a wiki page. The purpose of Wikipedia is to provide information about things to interested people and that's what their page does, especially since their official website isn't detected by search engines. What is wrong with allowing them a page? It's not hurting anyone, if anything it's just allowing them more visibility. Additionally, as a college student myself, I can say that their early Sunday morning timeslot is valuable air-time since everyone stays out late on Saturday nights. What's wrong with a little late late night (aka, early morning) radio comedy? Leave it alone, let them keep their page and promote their show.--Elysiasegal 04:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • ""Keep"" I am a huge fan of Morning Sickness with Eric and Harrison and listen every week, please don't delete this page! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.57.125.86 (talk) 04:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete because being on a station which the FCC proves nothing if the show is non-notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markdsgraham (talk • contribs)
  • KEEP this is ridiculous this show is extremely funny. we will definitely be hearing from this guys later and won't wikipedia look stupid then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.161.60.114 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment. Although I don't know how to determine how many people listen to "Morning Sickness with Eric and Harrison," I have seen the radio station ratings for the Chicago area. As shown here, WNUR is not even one of the 30 highest rated stations in the area and has less than an 0.9% share of listenership. Admittedly, the Arbitron ratings cover only 6 a.m. to midnight and thus do not cover the "Morning Sickness" time slot, but there isn't any evidence that this show has a large listenership either. If it were a very popular show, one would think that WNUR would prominently feature it on its web page [1]. I can't even find any coverage of this show in the college newspaper [2]. Keeping this page to allow the show more visibility and to promote the show would violate WP:NOT#SOAP which says that "Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising." Finally, if we decide to wait until Eric and Harrison attain more fame before giving them an article, that's fine with me; the question is whether they warrant an article now, not whether they will in the future. Consensus can change. --Metropolitan90 05:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, shameless self promotion... the banner at the top with their faces on it is a dead give away. --Candy-Panda 06:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This debate seems a bit blown out of proportion. But...WNUR is, by both its own wikipedia entry and verifiable sources a popular and respected college radio station throughout the country and other shows on the station have wikis. As to the previous post about arbitron ratings, with all due respect, most people (myself included) don't know jack about how to interpret them. I'm a resident of Chicago who has telecom. experience in both tv and radio and listen to stations torward the bottom of that list--they certainly seem legit to me. See #30 105.9 WCKG. Despite having a %9 share, this station airs Opie and Anthony and the Steve Dahl show, the former being a popular nationally syndicated show and the latter being a perennial top-100 talk show host in the country according to Talkers magazine, the leading industry trade-mag. To be honest, I don't care what happens, there seems to be bias on both sides. I just can't tell the difference between this show and the COUNTLESS other talk shows that have wikis. Let us see the actual ratings. Until then, this is just guess work by people who, unlike myself, do not live in the Chicago market and have no idea of its makeup. JmpJckFlsh1968 08:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC) — JmpJckFlsh1968 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. One of those edits was creating Morning sickness (disambiguation), though[reply]
  • Comment I'm a little concerned about the name calling on this thread i.e. "socks" I'm not a sockpuppet for one. For two, I'm interested with this discussion The leader poster, calton has even taken to insulting a WIKIPEDIA ADMIN, Rspeer when he tried to clean up the thread. please try to have an open forum to voice an opinion 24.12.186.181 11:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Opinions" mean bupkis. Evidence, on the other hand, does. I'm not in the mood to play your games, so listen up: provide some shred of evidence -- from multiple, non-trivial, reliable sources showing someone outside the WNUR studios has even heard of this show and you're golden. Arguing irrelevancies, logging in from different computers or enlisting roommates/friends/siblings to chime in with "me too!", and changing the subject won't do a bit of good. I refuse to argue irrelvancies or "opinions": bring me evidence. --Calton | Talk 11:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't want this to turn into dispute between the two of us, but, as far as I'm concerned, you originally brought the charge for deletion. I thought the page was worth it, and thought this would be a fair forum to discuss an important issue: a "value judgement" on the legitimacy of a radio program. Instead of sticking with the merits of that discussion you've swerved off into namecalling and malice. I am not a sockpuppet. 2, I don't have access to a "shred of evidence" and I don't know where anyone would get one and I didn't think I needed one for my opinion to be heard. Like I wrote above, I'm relatively new at wikipedia. I think its great how the articles are fluid and represent true "freedom of expression" on the internet you call for a "shred of evidence" . You made the charge on the article. I just can't figure how you can be this closeminded, altough a quick look at the user comments on your page show that this isn't the first time you've pulled this, and it won't be the last 24.12.186.181 12:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I would urge the IP address contributors to avoid incivil comments and personal attacks and to familiarize themselves with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, both on conduct (WP:NPA and WP:CIV for example) and on content (WP:NOR, WP:NOT, WP:V, WP:NOTE and WP:RS would make a great start). Fram 14:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Overnight show on a college radio station with a signal so weak it's unaccessible from most of the Chicago area. No independent coverage I can find anywhere except mirrors of this article. This is as non-notable as they come. Fan-1967 17:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Johnbod 17:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Important Comment I was a contributer to the original Morning Sickness wiki. I made my opinion known in an earlier comment on this delation page which has since gotten out of control. Sooooo I challenge all posters to deal with the relavant issue: Essentially this debate boils down to who determines the value of a broadcast vehicle. What I hear up to now is this: 1. Morning Sickness broadcasts on a college radio station and thus is not "notable" 2. Morning Sickness broadcasts during the night and thus is not "notable" Will wikipedia now way that college radio and night radio (both viable forms of comm) are not notable. 3. The Morning Sickness wiki serves as a publicity device. The FACTs are: every wiki for every tv show, movie, radio, show, racehorse, etc. serves as publicity. This is because INFORMATION is publicity. Notice I did not say PROPAGANDA. There is nothing on the Morning Sickness wiki that is an exageration or unencyclopedic. It is verifiable fact. How is it verifiable? By listening to the show. Otherwise, I feel this attempt to delete this page is an unjustified attack on a show that for some reason the Federal Communications Commision thinks is valid even though wiki editors who are not familiar with Chicago radio nor WNUR the station (which does indeed have national notoriety) nor the Morning Sickness program. Once again, I urge all posters to address these issues without giving curt reasons that don't even appear to be thought out. JmpJckFlsh1968 18:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply: Notability in the Wikipedia context is (the first line from WP:NOTE): "A topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject itself and each other. ". No such notability has been shown for this radio show, and this is what has been used as the relevant issue by those suggesting to delete it. If you can give us verifiable reliable published sources to assert that the claimed notability is recognized by independent, trustworthy sources (like newspapers), then those wanting to keep it would have a good argument. WP:ILIKEIT, on the other hand, is not a good argument. Fram 20:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, for lack of independent coverage. But I encourage commenters here to keep things civil and refrain from biting newbies, even ones you disagree with. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 21:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable and as per Elysiasegal. Dwain 23:28, 25 January 2007 (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/Morning_Sickness_with_Eric_and_Harrison&oldid=1138097105"