Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of most-listened-to radio programs

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 Keep. As the author of the article articulated well here, the subject of the article has been established to be notable, in that numerous independent sources are available to demonstrate that it has been covered adequately to satisfy WP:N. That the list will require effort to maintain is both true, and as pointed out here, not likely to be a huge burden, as the data has not changed in several years according to the references. That the list is too narrow is simply not valid, in that lists are required to have strictly defined inclusion criteria (WP:LIST). That the list will not grow is probably valid, but there is no criteria for deletion that requires lists to be unfinished. In fact, in this debate, the same people seemed to try to require the article to be both more complete and yet want it deleted becuase it might not grow. Some editors here do not trust some of the data in the article and feel that there are factual errors; this is the very nature of a wiki, and should be assumed for every article in the project. Should the article be renamed? Probably... but that is a job for the talk page of the article, not AFD, to address. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 04:06, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of most-listened-to radio programs[edit]

List of most-listened-to radio programs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Overly narrow list, may never grow beyond this. What qualifies as "most listened-to" anyway? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 01:05, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Uhhhh, the same as most watched TV show, most downloaded song, most read newspaper, its not magic, its called Arbitron, which is says in the article. See other articles in the category. How would you expect it to be less narrow? include the "least listened to" and "moderate listened to"? or were you expecting it to include other media, like magazines and newspapers and television? These have their own articles. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:08, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question, since we have the author here, is this a stub? Or is this a misnomer, and should it have been a list for 2005 only? Drmies (talk) 01:57, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is a stub and the data is from 2005-2008, and things haven't changed much in those years. I don't think the top five have changed since Howard Stern dropped of the list. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:32, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 02:06, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 02:06, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete This is going to be much harder to maintain than lists of the most popular movie, tv shows, music, etc. Rankings are readily available for these from sources like Variety (magazine), Billboard (magazine), etc. Arbitron doesn't publish radio lists so readily, and not on a national level. What is readily available from sources like Radio & Records focuses on station rankings, not shows. You'll sometimes find listenership numbers in articles about Limbaugh or All Things Considered but those are essentially estimates. Arbitron doesn't publish books. Also Arbitron is in the business of providing marketing data so data for non-commerical stations like NPR stations is even spottier. Radio Research Consortium fills in some of that gap but show level data is equally hard to come by there as well. Even the stories in your local paper about which local radio stations are #1, #2 and so on are generally based on press releases from the stations themselves, not directly on the data from Arbitron. I just dont think this article has much of a chance of being maintained to a sufficient level. Even sources like Talkers Magazine are based on samplings of Arbitron data.--Rtphokie (talk) 02:43, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment We don't need to see the direct Arbitron data, just someone quoting the data. That is the basis of verifiability from a reliable source. The New York Times or National Public Radio quoting that data is a reliable source for the data. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:27, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As Arbitron does not directly publish national ratings, this is a bit more challenging to create, but the article is backed by ample reliable and verifiable sources. We have plenty of corresponding lists of television programs and films, and the only surprising thing is that this article did not exist before. If this could be accomplished in three hours before AfD, imagine what could be accomplished with a few more weeks of development. Alansohn (talk) 02:49, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Could you point to some of those verifiable sources?--Rtphokie (talk) 02:53, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • You could read the article, but here's what I found there:
        1. ^ a b c "Top Radio Host Shifts Blame as Advertiser, Radio Network Drop Show", Media Matters (July 22, 2008). Retrieved on 17 December 2008. "The Savage Nation reaches at least 8.25 million listeners each week, according to Talkers Magazine, making it one of the most listened-to talk radio shows in the nation, behind only The Rush Limbaugh Show and The Sean Hannity Show."
        2. ^ a b c "Latest top host figures", Talkers magazine (2005). Retrieved on 17 December 2008. "The new figures are in and Talkers magazine’s Fall 2005 estimates of the weekly cume ratings and rankings of the nation’s most listened-to radio talk show hosts, based on Spring 2005 local market Arbitron reports and other factors, indicate that the industry has remained relatively stable since the prior bi-annual report released earlier this year."
        3. ^ "'Listener Supported' and 'NPR': All Things Considered", New York Times (2005). Retrieved on 17 December 2008. "National Public Radio alone reaches more than 20 million listeners, and its daily newsmagazine shows, All Things Considered and Morning Edition, attract a larger audience than any program except Rush Limbaugh's."
        4. ^ "NPR Programs Attract Record-Breaking Audiences Public Radio Listenership at All-Time High", National Public Radio (2002). Retrieved on 17 December 2008. "Reflective of the intense news cycle following the September 11 terrorist attacks on the U.S., NPR's newsmagazines and talk programs increased audiences across the board. From Fall 2000 to Fall 2001, Morning Edition® with Bob Edwards jumped from 10.7 to 13 million listeners; All Things Considered® grew from 9.8 million to nearly 11.9 million; Talk of the Nation® rocketed 40.8 percent to 3 million listeners; Fresh Air® with Terry Gross grew 25.4 percent to nearly 4.2 million and The Diane Rehm Show grew 38.6 percent to nearly 1.4 million. Growth in the NPR news/talk audience outpaced similar gains realized by commercial news/talk radio."
      • Not a bad start, to say the least. Alansohn (talk) 03:04, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pointless minutiae. Why is the list just for 2005? If the list could be expanded into something a bit more worthwhile, it would be a justified article. Paul75 (talk) 03:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have yet to answer my and Paul75's question. Thank you. (Radio programs and the census have a slightly different level of importance, in the grand scheme of things; this is not a very good comparison.) Drmies (talk) 04:37, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think its an excellent comparison. When you say something isn't important, you aren't speaking for the world, just yourself. It is the ultimate in subjectiveness. We have two million articles and only maybe 5,000 or 10,000 were important enough for me to read. Importance is not a criteria for Wikipedia, just notability and verifiability. It meets both criteria. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:32, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The true list of most-listened-to radio programs is liable to change every day and the sources are out of date. It's relevant to having a list of yesterday's most watched TV programs under the title "List of most-watched tv programs". The list also borders on being trivia. Some sort of well-referenced list of most popular (or greatest etc....) radio programs of all time might be more appropriate. Themfromspace (talk) 04:46, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • We don't have a crystal ball, and since it hasn't changed during 2005-2008, it isn't likely to change unless one of the hosts of the syndicated show dies and the franchise dies with them. The top show hasn't changed since the ratings started being kept in 1991. Saying "[it] is liable to change every day", is original research and crystalballing. I think that you are confusing, most popular local radio stations with most-listened-to radio programs. Only a nationally syndicated show can reach the numbers needed to topple one of the top shows. And why would it be any more volatile than the list of top movies, which changes every year. The wealthiest people also changes. Come to think of it, every Wikipedia article changes when new information comes along. What exact Wikipedia rule appears to be violated? Remember the Wikipedia rule, "once notable, always notable". --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:21, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • How can you say it hasn't changed since 2005? (Do you have evidence? There's nothing in the article that makes that claim.) On TV, Olberman's show is now giving O'Reilly a run for his money. And besides, why would this list NOT change if, as you say yourself, the list of top movies or richest people changes? That makes no sense to me, that the popularity of radio shows would NOT change. And so the data you present is outdated, or the title is incorrect--especially given The Feds' comment below. (BTW, do you accept NPR's numbers on the ratings of their own shows as independent authority?) Drmies (talk) 15:44, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your asking the wrong person, when you ask me why the ranking doesn't change from year to year, it just doesn't change much. I guess it would be called a "mature market". The top program has been number one since the records were kept in 1991. Not believing the references is another issue, but I doubt all the references could be wrong. Maybe that is a good reason for keeping the article, since it appears to have educated you about something you did not know. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:36, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I asked you no such question. I asked you how you can say that. And I find it funny that you can make such strong claims here when you can't make them in the article. Then again, seeing how you continually misrepresent my arguments and my questions, I shouldn't be surprised. Drmies (talk) 23:41, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Independence is used to determine notability, not accuracy. The NPR web site telling me they are important enough to be included in Wikipedia is not enough, but information from their site can be used as facts in an article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:53, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Information, sure--but I would not accept NPR's numbers on their popularity anymore than I would accept Fox's numbers on their own shows. It's hardly independent. Drmies (talk) 20:08, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you point to a specific Wikipedia policy on the requirement to not use facts from a company's own website, or say an autobiography as a source for Wikipedia. If you have contradictory information, by all means, add it and change the order. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:59, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are deliberatly obfuscating. First of all, I never said that I had contradicting evidence. That is not my point. Second, it's plain old common sense that one does not automatically believe what a radio station claims about its listenership (or what any company or government says about its solvency or approval ratings--do I have to argue this point?). Do you need a policy to tell you that? A little browsing around in the WP:notability section would quickly lead you to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and it's obvious that that applies here, I hope; to Wikipedia:Verifiability, which applies here because one of the NPR references claims that "according to recent reports is the third most listened radio show in the country" without giving a source; and finally Wikipedia:Independent sources. So, common sense and Wikipedia policy, here in perfect agreement.
  • I apologize if that's too much reading. You asked for specific policies, I gave them to you. I've done enough work for you already. Yes, the last is an personal essay, and so what? it's meaningless? It's on the WP site, isn't it? I don't see your haphazard way of writing and sourcing and titling endorsed anywhere. Perhaps you can point me to a policy where it says that title and article don't have to have anything to do with each other, or a policy that states that it's perfectly fine to accept anything someone says, especially if they say it about themselves; you know, a possible WP:Dependent sources. Oh, how about a policy that says "most listened to in the US" means "most listened to in the world." I don't understand your stubbornness. Why not just rename the article? Why not make a table including all these years and the numbers you have for them? Why not have a disclaimer for the one or two numbers that have not been independently established? Why would you continue to purposely misunderstand your fellow WP editors? Why can't you seem to understand basic concepts like verifiability, consistency, independence? They seem to be essential to writing an encyclopedic article. "Paranoid about sources"? This is an encyclopedia, not a chat room. Drmies (talk) 20:16, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is just not useful to say I am violating a law, then hand me a law book and ask me to find some law I am violating. Cite a page in a law book or a case number. Both Notability and Verifiability have numbered rules just for this purpose. As to the essay, I have a user page in Wikipedia, that doesn't mean I am notable and encyclopedic, just because it is in Wikipedia. All your arguments have nothing to do with deleting the article but concern things best discussed on the talk page. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:06, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now, before you go and say that I should go and replace or edit this or that, let me state again--that is not my point. I'm not saying that NPR is lying about their numbers, or that they're wrong, or whatever. Besides, your proposal that I go and change the order has to be facetious, since you claim that the sources reveal that nothing, nothing has changed in three or four years. Oh, one last thing--the article says "weekly listeners in 2008," right? How can sources in 2005 and even 2002 reveal anything about 2008? At some point you have to own up to a basic confusion here: the title claims timelessness though the article does not; the article claims 2008 though some of the sources are old; the title claims geographic neutrality whereas the article specifies US listenership. Seriously.
But I've said enough. Some of the nay-sayers in this AfD have raised similar points; some of the yea-sayers have too (and some seem not to have noticed these problems). If I can't explain matters of neutrality or objectivity or contradiction to you via an appeal to Wikipedia policy or to anything else, then I have little more to say except for good luck. Drmies (talk) 23:41, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Has your argument now become that I have too many sources? That showing data from 1991, 2005 and 2008 is too much data, and just the most recent 2008 data needs to be shown? Or that the top shows from the 1950s are not included like Jack Benny. It still isn't clear to me what you are arguing for or against. I need something concrete. Or is your argument that the article needs to be deleted because you don't like the title. Or, are you asking for some sort of matrix that shows each show as a line, and the ranking of that show for every year from 1991-2008, like an Excel spreadsheet? Again, if you have contradictory sources that say the ranking is different, add the sources and change the ranking. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:06, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • Read the references from 2005 and the reference from 2008 that has the same order. If you have information on Olberman, add it to the article. This is about deletion, not details, if you have better references use them. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems that you do not understand what I am saying, or do not want to understand. Olberman's show is a TV show; it's an example. Specifically, it's an example of how the list (at least in its present form) makes little sense. If 'nothing has changed' in three years, shouldn't the article reflect that? Why does one have to plow through the references to find out that the data have not changed since 2005, and therefore the title is rational? Deletion is in the details, in some ways--the article and its references do not prove that this is a notable or doable topic. As others (above and below this exchange) have commented, the information in the article is dated and US-centric, whereas the title is general. And such a general title makes no sense: how does the best-listened to program stack up against its counterpart in China, or Russia?
As the article shows, radio show popularity, unlike TV shows, don't change from week to week, and changes very little from year to year. The number one show hasn't changed since at least 1991. It is still number one in 2008. Peek at the references. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:59, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But I think I've said enough, or really, that I've said the same thing often enough. You have not addressed some serious issues I and other editors have with the article, and many of those problems come from the title. I haven't voted yet, since I was hoping for a rationale and an idea as to the article's purpose and scope, and I haven't seen it--I've only seen problems. Delete. Drmies (talk) 18:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Not liking the title is a matter for the discussion page and is not a reason for deletion. Deletion has to be based on notability and verifiability. Remember this isn't a vote. It is notable because the topic is brought up in Talkers magazine, and the New York Times, and at National Public Radio. The multiple sources used make the information verifiable. The data comes from Talkers and Arbitron, and is quoted in the New York Times, and at National Public Radio. Arguments for deletion based on the best title, and whether data from China and Russia should be used are red herrings. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:24, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, they make some of the information verifiable. I never said it didn't. It's just that the article/list is poorly written and conceived, and esp. the poor conception is what bothers me. Others are bothered by the purposelessness of it. And China and Russia, that's no red herring, but then, you really don't seem to realize that there is more than one country in the world, and that other countries have radio stations too. You wrote the article, you should have come up with a reasonable title. Oh, one more time, data about National Public Radio comes from National Public Radio? That's about as objective as your voting 'keep' on your own article. Drmies (talk) 20:16, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, now you have stated something more concrete. You are saying the article "is poorly written". Is it the grammar or the spelling that is bothering you? All can be fixed if you point out the errors. And I apologize for any errors like that. As for "concept", in Wikipedia we call that "Notability". The concept has to be notable, I can't write about things that other people have not yet taken notice of. But that is covered by the ample references in the article. The New York Times, several books, and Talkers magazine all discuss the concept that one radio show has to be more listened to than another. The earliest reference used comes from 1971. And though the 1930's and 1940's people like Jack Benny and Fred Allen claimed to have the "top radio show". Doesn't that show that the concept is notable? Other reference works recognize the concept, even if they use a synonym. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:30, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • One more time: If you have information that there are radio shows in Russia and China that have a larger audience please add that information. Is it possible? Sure, but Wikipedia is based on verifiable facts not the abstract "truth". Do the research, find the facts. If you don't think autobiographies and corporate websites should be used as reliable sources, by all means argue that at Wikipedia:Verifiabilty. Verifiabilty is an excellent topic for discussion at that page. Is it possible the sneaky liberals are making up the numbers at NPR, and at the New York Times? If they are, then find some more reliable source that contradicts them. But don't just complain about the sources I used, do the research to show the numbers are wrong. If you want to convince me, show me a fact that I have wrong and show me an alternate source for that fact, and I will fix it and we can change the ranking. Is the ranking for one of the shows upsetting you? Are you upset about the ranking of NPR over another show? Be very specific, I keep adding more references for each fact, but I don't think that is the problem, it seems to be something your having trouble expressing. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:01, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Yes, I am confused, what does the Olberman's show on TV have to do with the article? Can you explain it a little better. If you don't like the title, please feel free to change it. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:53, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was making the point that things change over the course of three years; the article and the title suggest they don't. Drmies (talk) 20:08, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Every Wikipedia article changes when new information comes along, if you have info that contradicts, or is newer, please post it and change the ranking. If what you say was policy, we couldn't have information on any living people. When they die their status changes, and even when they live, they stubbornly continue to do things that upset the stasis of their biography. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:39, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, you don't seem to be able to understand what I'm saying. I thought I said it plainly enough. Your title, your list, your sources do not a coherent whole make. "If what you say was policy..."? What did I say? Wait--don't answer that. Drmies (talk) 23:41, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I understand your argument, the rankings will someday change so this article will not be valid in the future. My argument is that every articles changes as new information is generated. People die, people do new notable things and their biographies have to be rewritten to reflect the changes. Rankings of metrics for every country have to be changed every year. On the contrary, the top show in the list hasn't changed in 17 years. How is this article different? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:39, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, you don't understand my argument. That's OK. Drmies (talk) 15:59, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Correct, I don't ... you have some fuzzy dislike for the article that you can't express well enough for me to make any changes to please you. I guess it boils down to "I don't like it", and there is nothing I can do to help with that.
  • Maybe your not worried about the future, is it the past that is bothering you? That the list isn't showing historical top programs like the Jack Benny Show? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:32, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What show are you talking about? Is that reference supposed to be an insult? Drmies (talk) 20:16, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You find Jack Benny insulting? Since you can't express well what you dislike about the article, I am pointing out the weaknesses I see in the article, hoping you will have a eureka moment, and say "yes, that is it", that is what I was trying to express. Your dislike for the article is fuzzy, and other than not liking the references to NPR being a top show, I can't change what you can't express in concrete terms. Maybe that show rubs you the wrong way. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:14, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can express that very well, thank you very much--it's just that you can't read very well, neither my comments nor WP policy. (BTW, look at the first sentence of your response: you might study quotation marks. It's that fuzziness that makes your arguments inherently weak.) I dislike fuzzy articles. I dislike articles that are called "most-listened-to radioshows" when they only mention shows in one little part of the world, and only take one tiny segment of the history of radio. You should have called it "List of most-listened to radio shows in the US between 2005 and 2008," and that points out pretty quickly how pointless this is. I don't care about radio in China, I care about your article having a correct title. I don't care for Jack Benny (dude, I have no idea who that is--well before my time, probably), but I want data in WP to be accurate. That I only listen to NPR (yes, you misread that also in one of your earlier comments--how could you infer that I don't like NPR?) does not mean that I should believe their reports on their own ratings: only a fool would not take that without a grain of salt. But what I really don't care for, and what I really dislike, is this petty "oh which section of which article says that I cannot..."--go read the policy and see how it applies to your article. You might learn something. Seriously. It's good stuff. I hope that's not too much to ask--you can spend countless hours fine-tuning an article that's flawed from the moment you drew up the title, or you can spend some time thinking about things like space, time, objectivity. Some time reading, and then perhaps some time in a freshman writing class. See you later. Drmies (talk) 19:37, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can't create or modify an article based on anyone's hunches, dreams, speculations, suspicions, or paranoia. If you have data that contradicts the article, by all means add it, and add the reference, and change the ranking. Anyone can edit Wikipedia. Yes, there is a possibility exists a show in Russia or China that has a higher aggregate listenership, but Wikipedia is based on verifiability, not the hidden "truth". When someone finds a reference that info can be added under a new header, or in the paragraph that discusses the concept of a top radio show. Do you also have a problem with the other articles in the "top" category? There is top newspaper, top iTunes download, top soundscan album and top television broadcast. The TV program is for single episodes, not entire programs. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:38, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: this article is not about the most-listened-to in the world, only the U.S.A.. If kept, it ought to be identified as "...programs in the United States" or something similar. TheFeds 06:44, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I have several issues with this article. First, it would require constant maintenance and updating to be current. Second, it's woefully outdated, using information that's nearly 4 years old (how would you like to see an article on the most-watched TV programs, but the most recent information is from 2005. Radio shows have up-to-date weekly ratings, like everything else). Third, the introduction gives little context as to why this article is needed. Fourth, it's US-centric and we're supposed to be moving away from that. An article on the most-listened-to radio broadcasts of all time would be viable. But I just don't see viability in this article. This is one occasion where the sources provided don't really mean a lot, regardless of whether they are reliable or not. If the article is kept, I echo The Fed's suggestion that it be at least retitled to indicate that it applies to the US only. 23skidoo (talk) 17:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you explain how that is different from any other statistical article such as GNP that has to be updated as new information becomes available, or any other list in the same category? Anything listed as the top, can change. The bestselling book, the most watched movie, changes every year. The article has references from 2005 through 2008 that show that the ranking hasn't changed much since 2005, and the top show hasn't changed since 1991 when the ranking was started. I think you may be confusing this article with one that might tell who the top radio station in any market is at any given time. To get millions of listeners you need to be syndicated in multiple markets. If the list changes, the article can be changed just like: List of the 100 wealthiest people or List of countries by GDP (nominal). It is less burdensome than ranking every country on Earth every year in multiple lists, since just the top few are listed here. In List of countries by GDP (nominal), every country has to have their numbers changed every year, and there are 5 lists just like it, ranking other economic data. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:30, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As the creator, my vote is keep. It is well sourced and encyclopedic, and is used to verify claims used in the radio shows listed at their individual articles. Arguments against it seem to be about the title and the list not being comprehensive, all can be addressed with more research, it is after all just a stub at this point. The topic is as encyclopedic as any other in the category of top lists. Sources are from 2005 through 2008, the list doesn't appear to change much unless a show moves off terrestrial radio, as did Howard Stern, or a new show comes along. Both are rare events, the number one show hasn't changed in at least 17 years. I don't see it any more challenging than say List of countries by GDP (nominal) which I am sure changes from day to day as exchange rates rise and fall, yet it is updated only once a year as new, official figures come out. Bill Gates used to top List of the 100 wealthiest people, now he is third. How is one article more burdensome than the other to maintain.

--Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:12, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then why don't you change the title? Or why didn't you make it reflect the content of the article in the first place? Drmies (talk) 23:41, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:LISTS (1) discriminate list, i.e. only radio programs, only most-listened-to radio programs, and only most-listened-to radio programs as verified in reliable sources; and 2) referenced list actively being rescued). In addition the existing sources, items on the list can be verified in published books. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 15:55, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep My only objection is the page's title, which is a bit misleading. I wouldn't think of doing a search using the word 'list' but I would consider a search on the words 'Radio', 'Ratings', 'Viewership' -- things like that if I wanted this information.--MurderWatcher1 (talk) 19:55, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I doubt people would get to the article by knowing the name of the article, but I based on the TV version. I think most people will come based on links in the top program articles. I think, like me, people will be reading that so and so is in the top, and wonder who the others in the ranking are. I added a few redirects to help someone looking directly. If you can think of any more redirects, please add them. We can always change the title later. I have data from the 1950s of who had the top show from a few books, but I will hold off to after the AFD. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:56, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, with "in the United States" added to the title. It's a perfectly respectable article, already well-developed and well-cited, and evolving daily. Its originator deserves accolades, not interference. Hertz1888 (talk) 07:13, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My original concept was to list shows from other markets, such as the BBC in the UK even if the aggregate number is lower than the US, and be closer to the TV version of the article. That data is harder to find. I have never objected to a name change for the article, but I still want to add more programs in other countries. The BBC in mandarin must have wide listenership. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:36, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Go for it, then. Sounds like hard work, but not unfeasible. Hertz1888 (talk) 07:46, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems well referenced and a perfectly reasonable artice. If it doesn't grow beyond covering 2005-2008 and the US, that is not a reason to delete - perhaps just make the title more specific. I don't see that as being too narrow. Mdwh (talk) 14:44, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Richard Arthur Norton, Alansohn, A Nobody, Hertz 1888, and Mdwh. A reliably sourced, discriminate list. No grounds for deletion.--JayJasper (talk) 15:51, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are a lot of keep votes that seem to be assuming that reliable sources exist to corroborate rankings of radio programs. More details on which reliable sources you are referring to would be helpful. See above comments about availability of arbitron data.--Rtphokie (talk) 17:42, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm reading an article that provides a dozen reliable and verifiable sources that provide listener estimates. Can you specify which of these sources are NOT reliable? Alansohn (talk) 18:18, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think I have to quote raw census data to add the new population estimate every 10 years to the article on the United States. I can quote the New York Times, or CNN, or Reuters or the Associated Press when they use that new number. I think the rule is to not quote raw data and attempt to interpret it yourself, because an editor runs the risk of making an error. People even make errors in simple math when they calculate a person's age in biographies when given the birth date and death date. Of course so do newspapers and magazines, that is why they have a corrections column every single issue. But again it is verifiability, not the abstract truth we are trying to capture. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:45, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep editing problems are not reasons for deletion--not that I see any major ones. As for the argument over sources, we use straightforward stats of this sort routinely. some data needs interpretation, some doesn't. DGG (talk) 04:57, 22 December 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_most-listened-to_radio_programs&oldid=1144625790"