Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cort Webber

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Hawthornestreetblues (talk | contribs) at 20:07, 23 May 2011. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Cort Webber

Cort Webber (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Bobby "Fatboy" Roberts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Procedural nomination. These articles are about the co-hosts of a podcast that has been deleted following AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cort and Fatboy. Deletion was upheld at deletion review (Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 April 10). Both articles use content from the deleted article (see [1]), which is a violation of the copyright of our contributors unless the history is restored. However, history should not be restored if the material is inappropriate. Bringing it here for review, as either this must go, or that must come back. Note that there is evidently more content from the deleted version in Cort Webber than Bobby "Fatboy" Roberts. Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:37, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a podcast, it's a radio show. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.199.70 (talk) 17:19, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both as coverage in reliable third-party sources is either glancing or minimal and so the articles fail to cross the notability threshold. As in the previous joint article, the URLs had been omitted from the newspaper references making review of the sources more difficult for the reader. I have restored these references to completeness. - Dravecky (talk) 14:31, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A 3,000 word interview on AOL is "minimal"? -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.199.70 (talk) 17:19, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did. While the article props the biography up, the significant portion if the ARTICLE is a backdoor attempt to resurrect the C&F show article after it went through a AfD, Deletion Review, annother AfD (that was very heavily commented on), and annother Deletion review (which was closed as Sometimes you just need to step back and accept that a discussion didn't go your way.). IF the personalities are sufficently notable, create a new article that does not depend on the deleted "C&F Show" article. Otherwise, move on. Hasteur (talk) 19:40, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What a nifty little catch-22 you're setting up there. Basically - Roberts & Webber ARE in fact notable on their own, and the suggestion to create individual articles based on their individual notability was made in the previous article's deletion, but now that those articles have been created, they too need to be deleted because they share some of the same details of the previously deleted article? There's no merit in that argument. It's semantic goose-chasing. The question is whether their individual articles meet notability standards. They do. It's fairly apparent, and most of the arguments to the contrary rely on a general ignorance of the subject, for example, people not knowing that the Midnight Movies and Lebowski Events were created by them, or not knowing that the CW affiliate appearance is readily available. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.105.172.223 (talk • contribs) 20:40, 19 May 2011
74. IP commentator, have you read the wikipedia policies? If you had you would know that these personalities merit the same level of coverage as other local radio station personalities. The fact that a very significant portion of the articles is not about the individual artist, but about the show and the stuff they did together as part of the show (and it's future incarnations). The Fatboy article has some redeeming quality beyond the show content, but not enough to make a substantial claim for notability. To use an analogy, if a pair of afternoon radio personalities did a series of movie showings and episode watchings for their fans would they demonstrate significant notability? Probably not. Hasteur (talk) 21:25, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But if they were notable enough that there's coverage of those events by The Oregonian & the AP, events that only exist because they created them, then what? And what makes the Roberts page not-notable in the face of the AOL, Mercury and the Hats.com interviews? If the problem is that the Roberts article is less about notability and more about the article not spreading the focus, then shouldn't the argument be closer to TEG's, which is that time must be given for the article to be shaped instead of just getting immediately deleted? The tone of argument seems to have less to do with adhering to the intent of Wikipedia policy, and more to using policy to prove something to people you feel need to, essentially, "Deal with it." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.105.172.223 (talk) 21:56, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Both: These articles are still being built. Making a decision at this point would be premature. The articles should be allowed to grow for a period before any decision is made. It is also interesting to note that many of both of them have coworkers, both from their KUFO days, as well as at Cascadia.fm, as well as most of their guest, who have full articles in Wikipedia. TEG (talk) 21:19, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Both: If only to piss off Dravecky, who seems to have a strange vendetta against these two guys. Poor dude. I wonder if he's ever felt the soft, warm embrace of sunlight. We can only hope. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.193.196.252 (talk) 21:40, 18 May 2011 (UTC) [reply]
  • Delete both, but then either incubate or userfy to TEG24601, who feels this material is improvable. TEG24601 should get the opportunity to improve it if he wants. This will mean that the userfying admin will need to fix the history for licencing purposes. (This need not be complex. It will be in order just to place the list of contributors on the userfied article's talk page and leave an edit summary indicating that this has been done.)—S Marshall T/C 22:45, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Both content is valid and notoriety has passed reasonable threshold for inclusion in an online wiki such as Wikipedia. Both figures are well know within the greater Portland, OR area as well as people across the world. Articles makes references to known, reliable third party publications.Aadain (talk) 23:08, 18 May 2011 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]
  • Keep Both Anyone who questions the "reliability" of both articles' sources clearly lacks knowledge of Portland and Oregon. The Oregonian's the big daily paper here. Willamette Week has a weekly circulation of 80K+. The Portland Mercury is always widely read up and down the I-5 corridor. They've also appeared on shows like Outlook Portland and many times on television news stations like KGW. They may not be known in Virginia, but they're big here locally. The original article's page shouldn't have been deleted and neither should the pages for Webber and Roberts. The naysayers here are being both ruthless and nitpicky. The recent string of pranking vandals should, if anything, bespeak of the hosts' popularity....if little of the maturity of their listeners/fanbase. If only they were more willing to drudge up citations. That said, no amount of citations will ever appease the, to be it nicely, "pedantic" among us. Hawthornestreetblues (talk) 00:18, 19 May 2011 (UTC) — Hawthornestreetblues (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete both "local" notability doesn't cut it. And The Weeks' circulation numbers are a moot point in this discussion.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 01:02, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • If local notability doesn't cut it, then we'd have to nix roughly 2/3s of all the articles on Wikipedia, including every professional sports team in the US. Does anyone care about the Portland Trailblazers in London? Nope. Stumptowner (talk) 19:23, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Both The hosts have been covered in the AP, they're on TV and they keep getting into the top 100 on iTunes. Where's the problem? As for what ArcAngel says, there's plenty of Wikipedia articles with backbones built entirely on local coverage. If you really want to get into it, isn't the New York Times "local"? The Oregonian is up there in stature. Their staff has won Pulitzers and it's one of the biggest publications in the NW. 64.134.136.15 (talk) 03:32, 19 May 2011 (UTC) — 64.134.136.15 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • 3,000 words on AOL doesn't cut it? Take a look at the comment below, which points out that KGW doesn't archive their content past 90 days. The Oregonian and the AOL interview should be more than enough to establish notability.
  • Delete both: coverage is thin, local and generally fairly tangential. Also this recreation-from-deleted-content has more than a little of a G4 Speedy rationale. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:02, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both lacking reliable sources to meet notability. the fact that only multiple single purpose editors are voting keep says something. LibStar (talk) 06:36, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The fact that people who don't do Wikipedia are on here, trying to save the article, speaks volumes. Sorry, I don't really know all that much about the cite but you guys are all hung up on "reliability." If major dailies and internet sources aren't reliable, what is?
  • Keep Both are people just parroting "lacking reliable sources" to ensure adherence to the letter of wikipedia guidelines as opposed to intent? AOL's film site Cinematical.com conducted an over 3000 word interview with Roberts about his Geek: Remixed project, and Hats.com conducted another almost 2000 word interview with him as well. Neither of these mentions could or should be considered "glancing." The TV appearances on the Portland affiliate of the CW were sourced, and the Portland affiliate of NBC notes that they were featured guests, however their archives automatically reset after what appears to be 90 days. The Geek: Remixed project mention in the Mercury, the various other mentions in the Oregonian and the Willamette Week...I'm not sure where this "reliable sources" conflict keeps cropping up, unless you take into account the people making these judgments have literally no knowledge of the subject they're claiming to be policing. In which case it then makes perfect sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.105.172.223 (talk) 15:22, 19 May 2011 (UTC) — 76.105.172.223 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • Reply Nobody is questioning the reliability of the Willamette Week but their only mention in the cited article is noting a failed attempt by a few fans to file "more than 900 fraudulent votes" in the survey. The "Shake-up at KUFO" article from The Oregonian is great but the only mention of either man is this: "KUFO's afternoon hosts, Cort and Fatboy, also were let go Friday." That's glancing coverage, at best. The rate only a single paragraph in the article about pdx.fm in The Oregonian and the "Dude Keeps Abiding" text is a single mention (as hosts of a movie screening) in a calendar of local events. The problem is not with the sources but with the content in those sources. Personally, I wish there were enough articles in which the duo are the focus to make keeping them possible, but there's not. - Dravecky (talk) 18:16, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • the lebowski & midnight movie articles only exist because they created the events the newspaper saw fit to cover. I don't understand how that doesn't speak to notability. Both those events are only being covered because they created them. And those arguments ignore the at least 5 other articles that still, by your criteria, meet notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.253.193.137 (talk) 18:55, 19 May 2011 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]
  • 'Keep Both i hope I'm doing this right. Sorry, if I'm botching the format. The comment above, really, says it all. The CW, KGW, The Oregonian, Willamette Week, AOL....There's nine citations in the article, all from credible sources. This is ridiculous. The AOL article only should cut through any questions of notability.While you're all attacking Webber and Roberts, dozens of incredibly bad Wiki-articles are probably getting on here. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.199.70 (talk) 17:19, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nothing here that wasn't in the deleted Cort and Fatboy article. This is an attempt to sneak in the same material under different names. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:05, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, there are more than a few articles that are listed in both pages that weren't on the initial Cort and Fatboy page. Again, this seems to be speaking to the idea that the people pushing for deletion are both unfamiliar with the subject they're trying to erase, and not actually reading the articles they're claiming to clean up. Nobody pushing for deletion has yet to explain why they consider AOL.com, The Oregonian, The Portland Mercury, The Portland affiliates of The CW and NBC, Hats.com and The Willamette Week to be unreliable sources beyond flatly stating "they're unreliable sources." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.92.163.253 (talk) 18:16, 19 May 2011 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]
      • See my reply above. Many of the listed sources are notable and reliable but the coverage of the duo is glancing at best. Unconfirmable appearances as guests on a local TV show do not contribute to notability. - Dravecky (talk) 18:20, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • coverage of the duo is confirmable re: both the KGW and CW appearance, the CW appearance readily found on Youtube. The KGW appearance isn't readily viewable, but the KGW site does confirm they were featured guests. Besides which, this isn't a duo issue: the individual pages of both Webber and Roberts contain new articles that feature coverage that in no way could be considered "glancing," and would be apparent had you looked at them. It's hard to consider how the Mercury and AOL's coverage of Roberts' "Geek: Remixed" project, or the Hats.com interview with Roberts could be considered "glancing." This is becoming slightly ridiculous, and more than a little labored on behalf of those pushing the notability argument, especially considering there are people with valid, uncontested wikipedia pages using both Webber and Roberts as evidence of their own notability. If wikipedia is willing to use both of these people as a valid media cite to the notability of others, how is it they themselves, either as individuals or as a group, are not notable? That question is secondary, of course, to the accusations that 3000 word interviews by AOL are in and of themselves "glancing" mentions and not worthy of inclusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.92.163.253 (talk) 18:30, 19 May 2011 This template must be substituted.
  • Delete both - Coverage is a little too local for a global encyclopedia. Not notable. Karl 334 ☞TALK to ME ☜ 20:51, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]



Keep both - The Cort and Fatboy entry keeps getting deleted, and therefore, both hosts attempted for their own pages. Now they're being penalized for using the same information from their original page? Both personalities are credible radio personalities, from their days on-air to their current status in internet radio in Cascadia.FM. Try listening to their show at www.cortandfatboy.com. It's the real deal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mlobach (talk • contribs) 21:06, 19 May 2011 This template must be substituted.

Keep both Long time Wikipedia reader, first time Wikipedia, ummmm....debater? Contender? Speak-up-er-er? I looked through the site's policies. Yeah, I don't see a problem here. Some of the links included on the article, indeed, are not in-depth articles. Still, there's two on Roberts' page that are super-duper credible. The AOL interview is 3,000 words! What more do you want?!!! Feel free to delete all the other citations and keep that one then. Who cares? That thing's bullet proof. "Credible," "reliable," the works! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.178.19.17 (talk • contribs) 22:50, 19 May 2011 This template must be substituted.

Yet another IP address that doesn't sign, votes keep based on their interpertation, doesn't make a lot of contributions to WP, and GeoLocates to the Portland Oregon area. Hasteur (talk) 00:57, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How is that so terrible? I think it clearly suggests they're notable enough for fans to care about the articles. Steven Walling 01:07, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I concur and the decision to restrict commenting in this debate to registered users is appalling. If Roberts and Webber are significant enough for people who don't use Wikipedia to come in here and defend them, that says a lot about their relevance and importance. Stumptowner (talk) 19:23, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
it is not appalling, the fact that single purpose editors have swarmed this with very similar arguments suggest it is originating from a single group of people. completely justified. LibStar (talk) 04:41, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the same argument could be made that "a single group of people" are bound and determined to keep both this show, and its hosts, off of Wikipedia. Several of the naysayers have reappeared to exert the same arguments they applied to the original article back in March. Hawthornestreetblues (talk) 20:07, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep for both, due to references from Willamette Week and The Oregonian which make it clear they meet the test of WP:V and WP:N. The former is a Pulitzer Prize-winning publication, and the latter is the paper of record for the state. Clearly that's enough verification of general notability, nowhere in the relevant notability guidelines is it stated you need national news coverage to merit an article. Also, note that the previous single article was about their radio program and these are biographies of the individuals. The question of notability is separate even if some material is reused. Material which is reused inappropriately can simply be removed in any case. Steven Walling 01:07, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, the issue is not with the notability of Willamette Week and The Oregonian but rather that both men are barely or glancingly covered in these articles. For example, their only mention in the Willamette Week article notes a failed attempt by a few computer-savvy fans to file "more than 900 fraudulent votes" to try and rig a survey in favor of the duo. It says something for the depth of feeling about 'em in a few fans, as can be seen in this discussion as well, but does not support notability in the sense that Wikipedia uses the term. - Dravecky (talk) 10:42, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dravecky, you may have a point about the WW coverage but what are your thoughts on the interviews on AOL/Cinematical and hats.com? Those are completely devoted to Roberts, quite long and relevant citations. You may quibble with hats.com but Cinematical is a biggie. There's also the KGW appearances and that article in Oregonian by Lee Williams. There's plenty of other stuff here to establish notability. WW is just gravy, at this point. Please, focus on something other than just a handful of the citations. Stumptowner (talk) 19:28, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Roberts. The link to Cinematical is an interview, which leaves very much of it as the subject opinion of himself, but a good part of it does focus on him and it is a good addition to notability. Still, it cannot be the only source because then it doesn't make any sense for him to have reached that point. Obviously, as it can be seen by the rest of the sources, Roberts and Webber together have walked their road in what they do to get to they point where they are, but reasons for local coverage to be treated mildly are that it is more prone to both list routine announcements with more enthusiasm than mainstream would spare, and because it tends to portray local figures repeteadly (and with some loss of perspective), mostly because they fulfill a role that requires them to produce content sistematically while satisfying the consumption needs of a focused population. I don't feel that neither symptom is heavy in this case, but still the local attention doesn't give much to gather from. For what I see, Roberts and Webber are just doing their job, and while of course there are lots of jobs that get you to be notable much more easily than lots of others, there is no need to scratch for every small detail that could possibly grant them notability, or more like if you are doing it then perhaps is time to take a step back and wonder if perhaps it is not ripe yet. The repeated discussions of the subject in a consecutive manner is undoubtedly going to speak more of an attempt to push something into the project than a mere presentation of content would, so there's no bad faith here, if anything a bit of skepticism. There is no deadline, and for what is worth I don't think it will be much longer until they hit it - frankieMR (talk) 01:09, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this WP page is now semi protected to prevent anon IPs swarming and voting here. LibStar (talk) 05:58, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is that really that wise of a decision? Why should people who aren't familiar with Wikipedia and care enough about the duo to chime in be restricted from the debate. If anything, this situation should be seen as an outreach effort to possibly pull in newbies. Stumptowner (talk) 19:23, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
newbies who are single purpose editors shouldn't swarm AfDs. it is votestacking to the maximum. LibStar (talk) 04:41, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Both I helped created the initial Cort and Fatboy page and finally became so frustrated by the endless debates and viciousness of editors who know nothing about Oregon or the radio show that I had to walk away from it all. I'm saddened to discover that renewed efforts to bring them back to Wikipedia, where they rightfully belong, are once again being subjected to needlessly uptight grilling. The sources are there. The citations are there. From credible institutions and publications. KGW, Willamette Week, The Portland Mercury, The Oregonian, AOL. Shucks, the hats.com interview with Roberts, *on its own*, should be enough to establish credibility. I have never, ever seen another article on Wikipedia subjected to such intense scrutiny. This encyclopedia should not be used as a pulpit by editors that seem to derive a great deal of joy from bad-mouthing articles and flagging them for no other reason that...I'm not sure. A power trip? The desire to limit the scope of Wikipedia to entries that would appear in Encyclopedia Britannica? I, for one, encourage the expansion of Wikipedia to include a wide range of topics...provided the relevance and sources are there. Cort and Fatboy have paid their dues. They've got the citations and sources. In addition, they're treasured gems in Portland. They host movie screenings, trivia events and a fantastic radio show. Portland would be a much more boring place without them around contributing to the city's geeky subculture. If you take down their pages, you may as well remove the ones for other local institutions like Voodoo Doughnut, Stumptown Coffee, Tom Peterson and Mayor Sam Adams. If these articles are removed, well, then half 2/3s of Wikipedia should go down with them. There are, literally, millions of articles on this site that are 1/10th as interesting, relevant or well-sourced as the ones for Roberts and Webber. Perhaps its time for those that are voting "delete both" to go off in search of those? There are FAR more worthy scratching posts out there for them to dig their claws into. Stumptowner (talk) 19:23, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS does not advance notability for this article. LibStar (talk) 04:41, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cort_Webber&oldid=430564210"