Talk:Coyote Calhoun
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 7 February 2022. The result of the discussion was keep. |
| This page was proposed for deletion by TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs) on 5 February 2022. |
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
External links modified
[edit]Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Coyote J. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140606231320/http://www.bwcitypaper.com/Articles-i-2008-09-04-223707.113122-Hang-the-DJ.html to http://www.bwcitypaper.com/Articles-i-2008-09-04-223707.113122-Hang-the-DJ.html
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111102141535/http://www.bwcitypaper.com:80/Articles-i-2008-09-04-223707.113122_Hang_the_DJ.html to http://www.bwcitypaper.com/Articles-i-2008-09-04-223707.113122_Hang_the_DJ.html
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120725000010/http://www.bwcitypaper.com/Articles-i-2011-02-17-240081.113121-The-Golden-Age-of-Birmingham-Broadcasting.html to http://www.bwcitypaper.com/Articles-i-2011-02-17-240081.113121-The-Golden-Age-of-Birmingham-Broadcasting.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:19, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Notability issues
[edit]I would agree that this article has many issues and might be refactored somehow. However I do not think notability is one of them. I think it could be shortened and more biographical information added. A youtube video that is a recording of his firing at Z102 in 1988 is actively gathering over 1100 comments for an event that happened over 30 years ago lends credence to its historicity. I certainly understand the question but in this case it likely skates inside the line.
Is there a standard for notability?? Because if this gets deleted I can think of a few more articles which are biographies of Wikipedians themselves used for self promotion (and manage to somehow miraculously stay) that should be kicked to the curb immediately.
I'm of the perception that it does not seem notable to some people because they do not or did not belong to the communities which these people circulated. Perhaps that might be used in some future metric for notability. I do not have the time resource to spend on this article at the moment which it does need, but I do think it should remain until cleaned up. Nodekeeper (talk)
I genuinely think that this needs a slight refactor as well, because the way it is currently is very written from the POV of Coyote or someone who is really a big fan of them. I will say that the article has been genuinely getting better over the years but it has a ways to go before it really seems to be an article up to Wikipedia standard (at least for one of a living person.) It does not have high quality sources, in my opinion for some things since it links to things like MySpace, and other social media places. It is also generally missing citations. This article mostly reads like a effort at self-promotion, like you mentioned.
I am in agreement with what you have said about this article's notability. That is all.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by WraithOfWavelengths (talk • contribs) 09:13, 22 October 2024 (UTC)