Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin and Bean

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. Postdlf 05:28, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin and Bean

Not notible. "Kevin and Bean" yields 4 kiloGoogles. I seem to think this is a bad precedent. Plus it's a substub. -SocratesJedi | Talk 05:45, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Non-notability not established. It seems to be a popular Los Angeles radio morning show, and has connections with both Jimmy Kimmel and Adam Carolla. Besides, being a substub is not a reason for deletion. An article can always be expanded upon (unless, of course, it's deleted). R Calvete 06:31, 2005 May 1 (UTC)
Keep even though I think Jimmy Kimmel and Adam Carolla are vulgar Klonimus 06:44, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I dont think this show is anymore notable than other breakfast programs that have been deleted in the past. Megan1967 07:38, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per R Calvete. Kappa 08:13, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing in the article establishes notability. If it's deleted, someone can always write a better article later that explains why this particular morning radio show is notable. Quale 08:45, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, still keeping a few fans aroud [1] - Svest 09:04, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, as per Megan and Quale. Master Thief Garrett 10:53, 1 May 2005 (UTC) Merge and then Redirect to KROQ as per below. Master Thief Garrett 23:47, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a redirect to KROQ would be appropriate? Average Earthman 10:55, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Good plan... but how many people are *actually* going to search for that keyword and expect it to be on here? Probably not many... Master Thief Garrett 11:03, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep/expand. Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/KROQ Top 106.7 Countdowns - if a radio station is so iconic their annual countdown lists are notable, their longtime morning show should be notable too. I've never heard it and I live in Eastern Canada, but I've heard of it, frequently, from casually following the radio and music scenes. Samaritan 17:30, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — completely redundant with content on KROQ page. The pair can be summarized on their radio station page, unless there is a ton of content that can be added. — RJH 19:10, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. Notable radio hosts. Capitalistroadster 19:21, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to KROQ. When I lived in LA, I used to listen to them, but I don't believe any local-only radio programs should have their own articles. I see no problem with mentioning local-only radio programs in the articles about the stations they're from. Rick K 21:21, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
Keep and expand.--Prem 06:29, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
Delete redundant stub content for radio shows that Klonimus thinks are vulgar, then Redirect to KROQ. Barno 15:12, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to KROQ, though I wouldn't cry over deletion of this substub. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 15:23, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Kevin & Bean is very, VERY well known..my google search for "Kevin & Bean" came up with 3000+ hits. Singer Tori Amos even wrote a spoof of the song "Whoomp There it Is" that incorperated their names; they have released a vareity of charity albums as well, mostly Christmas Themed. This is another case of something being regionally significant but people arguing it to be not so because it's not global. Pacian 08:25, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with KROQ as above. ESkog 18:24, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how long a vote usually runs but this one has been running for 9 days now and the votes are Keep: 8, Merge: 3, Delete: 6, so I guess the vote is to keep it. As such I have begun an expansion of the article (which IMHO also displays more clearly the notability of the subject.) When is it acceptable to remove the VFD tag? Pacian 07:24, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

8 to 6 ain't a consensus, bro. Vfd'ing is about consensus, not majority rules. It's not exactly a democracy. Master Thief Garrett 07:37, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

First, not your bro, sweetie-pookums. :) Secondly, a consensus is a general agreement or accord: a decision reached by a group as a whole. There is no way that decitions at wikipedia VFD could ALWAYS be determined by an actual consensus because then it would mean EVERYBODY has to agree on one outcome. As far as I am aware VFD is is supposed to last for around five days at which point an action is supposed to be taken based on the GENERAL consensus of the votes accumulated, and in this case, the majority of the votes indicate that the article should be kept. An 8 to 6 to 3 vote is as close to a consensus as we're going to get, unless you forsee some way to FORCE everyone to vote one way and one way only...?Pacian 04:08, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

From the "guide for votes for deletion": At the end of a period from when the nomination of an article was listed, known as the lag time, an administrator in the VFD cleaning department reviews an article's VFD discussion, determines what the rough consensus is, and closes it. Wikipedia is not a democracy, and although this mechanism is named "votes for deletion", the votes are a guideline only to administrators. Pacian 04:13, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.