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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Get The Fuck Up Radio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

I'm questioning the notability. Sure, they had "big name stars", but I'm taking this to AFD just to be on the safe side. ViperSnake151 00:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with you dude. THis has Innaproprite Words and is like a add.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kurt the Doomed (talk • contribs) 00:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Yeah, it reads like an ad, but I don't think Inappropriate words are a problem since Wikipedia is not censored. ViperSnake151 00:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• (e/c) Delete Not quite G11 spammy, but still advertisement-like. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep per addition of sources, now seems at least somewhat notable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - advert, non-notable. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 01:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not trying to use any foul language other than the name of the show itself. It is legitimate and has been around for a while now. So, take it easy. Kids can find foul language if they look for it. Look up the "f" word on Wikipedia, or any other foul language for that matter, and tell me what you get. -- Destroy1998 01:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't worry about language. Wikipedia is not censored. See also WP:PROFANITY. --L. Pistachio (talk) 09:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Weak assertions of notability are given through unsourced statement that they "recently won the “People’s Choice” award for Best Radio Show by the LA Record" and through the list of notable guests (unsourced, too). (I doubt that's enough though.) Can't find secondary sources on Google/Google News. -- Lea (talk) 01:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: There you go. It's all cleaned up and I sourced everything that I could. Tell me it's not legitimate now. -- Destroy1998 02:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The sources seem to be sufficient. --Eastmain (talk) 02:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Indecent name, decent sources. 86.44.6.14 (talk) 07:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep Keep, but clean it up, yes I know {{sofixit}} Q ^{T C} 07:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep With the sources there now, it looks like a legitimate stub. --L. Pistachio (talk) 09:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Seems to be notable now that's it's sourced. Scarian^{Call me Pat} 17:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Question: two of the sources in this article are blog entries from laweekly.com - I can't tell if they are legitimate secondary sources written by real journalists or if laweekly just hosts blogspace for whoever. Does anyone know which it is? I'm leaning towards "keep," but knowing that these sources are legit would cinch it for me. – jaksmata 20:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I had a similar concern, but it's the former. Ryder is a "proper" journalist [1], and that blog, The Style Council, is basically the Weekly's fashion, music and nightlife column. 86.44.6.14 (talk) 20:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, keep (thanks, by the way). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaksmata (talk • contribs) 22:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 23:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep Warrior4321^talkContribs 00:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Sourced now, asserts notability. Seraphim♥ ^Whipp 10:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Subject has significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. - Dravecky (talk) 00:48, 14 February 2008 (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.