Talk:Too Beautiful to Live

Grammatically Questionable Sentence

I question the phrasing and word choice of this:

"humorous sound clips ("audio drops") accumulated throughout the show’s run thus far are played over the music"

Does someone have a suggestion how it could be reworded to be less cumbersome? Perhaps it would just be easier to delete? Bluecanary99 (talk) 20:11, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Delete all of it for all I care. This and everything below. This article should never have existed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.255.8.17 (talk) 04:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

deleted with consensus and no objections Bluecanary99 (talk) 05:35, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Words "Pacific Time"

There is an obvious inference, with a local radio show, that the time listed is the local time, not an exotic time. This should be deleted, IMO. Bluecanary99 (talk) 06:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Theme Song Reference

Including a theme song in the body of an article for a radio show or podcast seems exceptionally nuanced. I've randomly checked the articles of 3 additional radio shows and none of them make this reference. While some do, in fact, reference a theme song in the infobox, we don't have the ability to do that in this case as the radio show is now an active podcast and the radio show infobox has been replaced with the podcast infobox which does not have an entry for theme song.

This sentence needs to be deleted, IMO. Bluecanary99 (talk) 06:35, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I feel your removal of the radio show infobox was unwarranted. TBTL is still a radio show, albeit a canceled one, so the original info box still applies. If you need help for formatting a canceled radio show that still continues as a podcast, the article The Adam Carolla Show can give you a good idea of what works. Humbly, Nathalmad (talk) 06:47, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The Adam Carolla Show is not a podcast, it is a former radio show only. TBTL is a radio show that has chosen to transition to podcast form. Currency has primacy over antecedence. Bluecanary99 (talk) 15:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The article mentions that the show was canceled, but continues as a podcast. If this is incorrect then you can fix it. The purpose was the show that a canceled radio show is still deserving of the radio show infobox. Humbly, Nathalmad (talk) 18:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

A radio show transitioned to a podcast. So does its infobox. Currency has primacy over antecedence.

Regardless of that fact, this is a section for the discussion of the deletion of part of the body of the article. If you would like to discuss the infobox, you should start an appropriate section. WP:TPG is a good resource if you need clarification or assistance about the correct order of topicality on a discussion page. Most Congenially, Bluecanary99 (talk) 19:51, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of 2 Sentences

I would like to delete this sentence: "TBTL hosted listener events branded as "the TBTL Book Club" which involve discussion of a particular book.[3]"

A google search of the phrase "TBTL book club" produced 13 unique results, about half of which were links to the wikipedia article. From the few others available, it appeared this listener event was held twice and attracted 20-30 people each time. I question the significance of a radio show's listener promo attended by 40-60 people in aggregate.

I would also like to delete this sentence: They revealed their weights and compared it to the previous show’s total and often recount their activities their previous night or weekend if the show is a Monday.

Since pretty much every radio host "recounts their activities their previous night or weekend if the show is a Monday" the reader will probably be able to make a reasonable assumption that this also occurs with this radio show. The sentence comes across as padding. Bluecanary99 (talk) 01:01, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I am fine with the deletion of the first sentence, but suggest just modifying the second one. Beginning every episode with a statement of their weight appears to be unique to the show, if not recounting their weekend. Humbly, Nathalmad (talk) 01:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

While reserving the right to re-raise the issue at a later time or later times, I conditionally accept this suggestion. Bluecanary99 (talk) 06:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Deletion

It appears this article was nominated for deletion previously. I'm nominating again since it covers a defunct local radio show. Bluecanary99 (talk) 00:09, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I would contest this claim. While, yes, the show has/had a small listener base via terrestrial radio, it has been much more successful as a podcast, with listeners across the country and around the world; I don't have exact numbers at this time. That's exactly why it has been cancelled in its radio iteration. It is a successful podcast, which warrants an article. Anyway, if Wikipedia policy were to exclude flops, many articles would have to be cleared from the site. Thadmoore (talk) 03:38, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

We should move this to the deletion discussion page. In any case, though, is there a reference or citation that it's been successful as a podcast? If there is, I'd certainly be willing to see it kept. If it's really a successful podcast such a reference should be easy to find. I don't believe Wikipedia policy is to exclude flops, Wikipedia policy is to exclude not-notable topics. Since there's as little barrier to entry to a podcast as there is to a web page (i.e. none) it's obviously untenable to have a wikipedia article about every podcast anymore than it is to have a wikipedia article about every website it strikes someone's fancy to create. But, if there is a reference to a legitimate source indicating this is one of the most popular podcasts in the English-speaking world then, certainly, I'd be happy to see this article kept.Bluecanary99 (talk) 06:35, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Request for Deletion

The call-screening philosophy of a local, nighttime radio show in DMA 14 strikes me as (1) overly trivial, and, the article itself (2) poorly composed. I would like to delete: Despite its format as an AM talk radio show, TBTL does not take calls nightly. This usually occurs only several nights a month, and only for an hour. The lack of calls taken during the show is due to both Jennifer's hesitation about obnoxious callers, since the calls are not screened, and because Luke does not see the need to do so regularly, as they strive to be different than the standard talk show. However, if Luke notices that someone is calling in, he may take the call if he feels the person is calling about the topic they are discussing at that particular moment. Please reply by February 28 if you object. Sans objection I'll go ahead and make this change. Notabilitypatrol (talk) 20:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Object; it's not to the level of the previous trivia, and we should note what sets the show apart from other shows of the same type. --Golbez (talk) 23:39, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Object to Objection - (1) that something is "less trivial" than something that's trivial, doesn't make it substantial or important; (2) a show's call volume can not, objectively, be classed as a distinguishing characteristic. The John Zeigler show on KFI-AM was a non-caller driven program, there are any number of shows like this. That they are in a slight minority doesn't merit each of them having a paragraph providing a holistic description of something as trivial as call screening philosophy. However, I'd be satisfied with this part of the entry remaining provided it's cut to a single sentence and the grammar, style and syntax is improved. That would be a great compromise where both sides would win. Let's try to expedite this - I propose if there are no objections in the next 24 hours to trimming to a sentence that this change be made expeditiously. Notabilitypatrol (talk) 00:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Whether or not a talk show takes callers is a major part of its format. You may find some way to trim it, but we definitely should point out their caller policy. --Golbez (talk) 02:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed! I propose the following in lieu of the exhaustive, trivial, rambling and grammatically incorrect description that now exists:

The presentation of Too Beautiful to Live is format-similar to a Morning Zoo or Hot Talk program, as opposed to the politically-oriented talk shows that make up the rest of KIRO's programming. As such, listener phone calls are accepted on an infrequent basis.

While this may not be a full representation of the minutia of the program, there's simply no way a wikipedia entry can replicate the experience of actually listening to a radio show and it would be futile for us to try to do that here. Let's reach consensus on this by this time tomorrow. Notabilitypatrol (talk) 02:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a source for the characterization of TBTL as "Morning Zoo" or "Hot Talk"? If not, this would seem to be opinion, and WP:OR. And when you refer to the "exhaustive, trivial, rambling and grammatically incorrect description that now exists", could you be more specific about just which part of other editors' work you are deprecating?--Arxiloxos (talk) 03:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

1. It clearly follows the format of Morning Zoo and/or Hot Talk (see new section at bottom of this page). One does not need to source common-sense statements. But I'm happy to concede that point provided the rest of the proposed edit is accepted. In this compromise everyone will win.

2. I'm happy to be more specific:

• the second sentence of this paragraph is 47 words long / "rambling" and "exhaustive"
• there doesn't need to be a comma between "show" and "TBTL"
• "usually only occurs several nights a month" - "only" is an unnecessary modifier
• "AM talk radio show" - in common usage as applied to radio this refers to a morning show; no one prefaces the band prior to the program format unless you're talking about AM Country Notabilitypatrol (talk) 04:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Page Protection

I've requested page protection. A user has recently removed fully sourced, controversial statements about the show. While the protection request is being considered I'll continue to edit the controversial sections to add additional sources, in case that's the problem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Notabilitypatrol (talk • contribs) 22:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Name of the Show

I'm not sure this show is actually called "Too Beautiful To Live," despite the graphics on iTunes and the station's website. It is never promoed or introduced as such. Burbank habitually introduces the show as "TBTL, the show that is probably too beautiful to live." Cpk1971 (talk) 05:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

It is called Too Beautiful to Live. There are intros for the show that play at the top of each hour using this name, the show is referred to by this name by the other KIRO on-air personalities, and Burbank only calls the show TBTL because it is quicker to say than the full title.Luke (talk) 22:19, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Disputed:AwesomeNotAwesome

In a February 13th edit, the following information was added to this subsection: "The idea for this segment may have come from an unrelated blog called "Awesome/Not Awesome" that started a month before the program went on-air. Host Burbank has yet to acknowledge this connection." This sounds like original speculation; only someone connected with the show could validate a claim like this. I'm tagging this rather than deleting the disputed passage to give the contributor a chance to cite a verifiable source for this claim. --Enwilson (talk) 12:03, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Trimming

I could say I'm neutral, but I'm not. I'm an eleven. (A significant other of a Ten.) And most of this article needs to go. It's a fanpage, full of trivia interesting only to people who love the show, but not all that useful. I'm writing this note here to explain the purges I'm about to make:

1. The stuff on the people can go. Luke has his own article; we don't need the description here of him as a 'hipster'. The others, I see nothing in their sections that's particularly worth mentioning here. If you want to put it on a TBTL FAQ, then by all means, but this is an encyclopedia, not a FAQ.
2. The stuff on the segments. Again, this is pure trivia; Wikipedia doesn't need to know what their review of Synecdoche, New York was. It's also entirely uncited.
3. And while we're at it, sourcing. Most of the article itself it entirely uncited.

What can stay is the basic description of the show. Not the little segments they do, though it is interesting how they don't take calls and why (though it needs sourcing).

I am not part of this edit war; in fact, I've told participants of both sides to cool it. I'm familiar with, and friendly to, the show, which is why I think the article needs to be trimmed greatly. --Golbez (talk) 16:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

As for the 'controversy' section, if included at this point, this would give it very much undue weight. Some of it may be warranted, but certainly nothing close to all of it. Certainly none of the individual ones about plagiarism, most of them seem specious (like the Movementarians or the 'dudity'), but if you could find a single source dealing with the subject then that might work. But realize that we can't have an article that is 90% trivia, so that's gone. And since that's gone, if we put back in the controversy section, it would then be 75% controversy, which is also bad. --Golbez (talk) 16:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Untrimming!

After discussions with Golbez on IRC, I have decided to restore the sections on presenters and segments for the time being, without changing any of the improvements that (s)he had made to the main article.

I fully agree that these sections are weak, and need considerable work. However, after reading WP:FAN and other related issues, I feel that the material is reasonably neutral, is citable (the episodes are available, apart from other possible sources), and does not contain original research. Therefore it should be possible to improve it to a suitable level. WP:FAN#Approach suggests we assume that the article could be improved, and try to raise interest in doing so.

This is, therefore, a shout to any and all fans. Please help to improve the article - otherwise it is likely to be cropped.

If anyone needs ideas, perhaps look at I'm Sorry I Haven't a Clue for a similar, but much more encyclopaedic, article.

Lets try and tidy it up.

--  Chzz  ►  18:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Great Job Working Together, Gang!

1. Any perceived level of "trivia" or "minutia" in the "Controversy" section that was vandalized is relative only to the trivia or minutia present in the rest of the article. Detail matches detail, ergo the word "balance" in "editorial balance." However, if we are going with a less detailed article then I have no problem at all in suspending my claim to a "Controversy" section per the excellent points raised by User:Golbez.

2. I'm impressed and satisfied with the edits made, with the following caveats:

• It's not uncommon on wikipedia articles to acknowledge a radio or television show's statistical success when that information is available. That information is available in this case via a recent, high circulation newspaper article and so I think it will be widely appreciated by wikipedia users if that information is returned (it was one of the things that had been vandalized/deleted). Arbitron ratings are a simple fact and are neither controversial nor critical. wikipedia entries for other KIRO shows make objective reference to their ratings success. I volunteer to add this.
• There are other radio shows with this name that now, or have, aired in New York and Ontario. We need a statement saying it is unrelated to either of those to avoid confusion. I volunteer to add this.
• While I've never listened to the show I announce a challenge to these uncited sections and would like to request third-party sources be used in citation - not audio from show or links to the show's webpage - in accordance with WP:PRIMARY -

• Fans of the show are often referred to as "The Tens", stemming from an early episode where Luke would mention how they only have "tens" of listeners, rather than "hundreds" or "thousands".
• TBTL also has a book club where listeners and the hosts get together to discuss a particular book.
• The lack of calls taken during the show is due to both Jennifer's hesitation about obnoxious callers, since the calls are not screened, and because Luke does not see the need to do so regularly, as they strive to be different than the standard talk show.

I am presently in a remote location with extremely limited and spotty internet access and will, if lucky, have access once a day maybe for the next week or so. I'll make none of the above changes until I return which will give the community an opportunity to discuss or to add citations to those statements that are disputed.

Best! Notabilitypatrol (talk) 22:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think a third-party source is needed there. First party sources are fine for things like that. As for the things you volunteered, I suggest we keep as little editwarring as possible in the article; I suggest you put them here first, so we can discuss them first. --Golbez (talk) 22:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Whatever, but we'll still need some kind of source ... none exist right now! Notabilitypatrol (talk) 22:45, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, well, I'm a bit peeved that my untrimming was instantly re-trimmed; I really thought that some of the info about the characters and recurring in-jokes could be put together in a neater form and contribute to the article - but I was stopped in my tracks. Hey ho. I'm not even vaguely interested in the topic itself, TBH, I just stumbled upon the discussion. I hope you'll be able to work it all out - I just think it'd be a shame if all that info went to waste, 'coz as far as I can make out from WP guidelines, a lot of it is suitable for inclusion. --  Chzz  ►  03:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

That seemed like an appropriate edit from a reasonable and tempered admin, User:Orangemike, in my opinion. All of that information strikes me as very superfluous. Notabilitypatrol (talk) 05:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I am unable to find any references to other radio shows going by the name "Too Beautiful to Live" in New York, Ontario, or any other city. If you can find references to these shows, then I would not object to a statement differentiating it from other programs of the same name. Humbly, Nathalmad (talk) 02:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Cite or Remove

This: The show is an attempt by KIRO and Bonneville to draw a younger audience to KIRO, which has an aging listener base like many talk radio stations.

Needed: (1) citation that the show is an attempt by KIRO to draw a younger audience, (2) citation that KIRO has an aging listener base, and, (3) citation that many talk radio stations have an aging listener base

Why: I believe all three statements within this sentence are inherently wrong by measure of common sense. I have no source or citation myself but, in the absence of a supporting source or citation, we are required to err on the side of conservatism and delete the unverifiable assertions.

This is an obvious deletion criteria meeter --- after reviewing the logs of this article it's clear if nothing has happened to this point nothing will and there's no point in beating around the bush - I'm deleting it myself - if someone has a problem with it, tell me. 207.102.78.164 (talk) 01:58, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Cited and restored

This proposition is supported by three previously-cited articles. Here's Seattle Magazine:

The problem: Audiences are mostly white males over 45, a waning demographic. Under-35s make up only 22 percent of the listening audience, according to the trade mag Talkers. That’s why KIRO hired the 32-year-old Burbank—to get the kids back to the radio.

and also in The Stranger:

And its personality-driven concept is sticky enough to draw fickle young listeners back, repeatedly.

Which is why KIRO, with its mostly older audience and otherwise cookie-cutter programming, keeps such a weird, boutique offering on the air.

For now.

and also in the Seattle Times:

He's also garrulous, genial, funny, smart-alecky and, if you're News Talk 710 KIRO — coveting Gens X and perhaps Y — desirably young.

and

This departure from typical AM radio was hinted at back in August, when KIRO, newly acquired by Bonneville International, ousted Vinnie and host Ron Reagan in a significant programming move. Dori Monson moved to a slot following Dave Ross. Afternoon news anchor Tony Miner got a new show and the freedom to go longer on stories. And management kept promising something new and different at 7 p.m. (The Wednesday-evening "Seahawks Huddle" show remains for as long as the Seahawks remain in the playoffs. So tonight will be a mash-up. TBTL Hike!, perhaps?)

New and different? Enter Burbank, . . .

and

"He's a great young talent. He understands radio, and he speaks well for that age group and for people who are just tired of all that acrimonious partisanship," says Michael Hood, who chronicles local talk radio on www.BlatherWatch.blogs.com.

Talk radio currently speaks to an older, white male demographic. Experimenting with someone like Burbank, Hood says, is nothing but smart.

I've reworded and restored this sentence to the article, with in-line footnotes this time. --Arxiloxos (talk) 08:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Deceptive Statement Requires Immediate Editing

What: TBTL has a book club where listeners and the hosts get together to discuss a particular book.

Edit to: TBTL has hosted listener events branded as "the Book Club" which involve discussion of a particular book.

Why: I spent 4 minutes of checking on this radio show's website just now and, in their 2 year history, they have sponsored 2 listener events that have involved discussing a book and which they have branded as a "Book Club."

Rationale:

• The article book club on wikipedia suggests a book club is either a single title, ad hoc forum, or a recurring, actual "club." Two marketing events that involved books do not become book clubs on the basis of being "branded" that.
  • Geico brands their spokesman as a talking Gecko. It would be inappropriate in an encylcopedic entry to say "Geico has a talking lizard as a spokesman." It would, however, be appropriate to say, "Geico's spokesman is a animated representation of a lizard."
• "But that's original research!" -- no, it's the correction of a one-off statement in a citation that can't be otherwise disproved because you can't prove a negative

Immediate feedback requested. Notabilitypatrol (talk) 01:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• As someone that's attended both book club dates, and the plural implies its a recurring actual "club," it's a book club! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.53.7 (talk) 06:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Trivial Statement Requires Deletion

The statement at the end about their listener events really is not germane to an encyclopedic entry and may warrant an advertising tag. I would challenge someone else to demonstrate 2-3 other wikipedia entries about other radio shows that go into detail about their listener events. This is more appropriate for this show's own webpage, not wikipedia. This needs to be deleted. Please provide input and feedback or allow for deletion. Notabilitypatrol (talk) 18:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Restoration

I'm currently not a Wikipedia member, but I think this article should be restored to its state before Notabilitypatrol completely destroyed it. Obviously she has a grudge against the show, and is disrupting the content of the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.172.102.124 (talk) 19:16, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

NotabilityPatrol had some good points, but took them way too far. A blanket 'restoration' is not a good idea, but perhaps some details could be put back. --Golbez (talk) 19:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Golbez A blanket restoration would start the entire war back up again, some of the information was unnecessary, but restoring a bit of information from the pre-war article couldn't hurt --Gold Man60 Talk 03:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Notabilitypatrol comes back as Bluecanary99 and the latest, Fangoria. Go ahead, Fangoria: prove me wrong there.Jimhsuseattle (talk) 03:22, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposal

WP:Merge states "there are four good reasons to merge two pages"; while it is only necessary we meet one of those reasons, these two articles happen to meet three of four, namely:

1.Duplicate – There are two or more pages on exactly the same subject and having the same scope.

standard is NOT met

2.Overlap – There are two or more pages on related subjects that have a large overlap. Wikipedia is not a dictionary; there does not need to be a separate entry for every concept in the universe. For example, "Flammable" and "Non-flammable" can both be explained in an article on Flammability.

standard is met

Subject's notability is based entirely on media coverage that has resulted only from his performance as a radio host, not as a radio reporter. He has held his job as a radio host for 22 months. Exactly 20 of those months have been spent on the proposed merge-to article.

3.Text – If a page is very short and is unlikely to be expanded within a reasonable amount of time, it often makes sense to merge it with a page on a broader topic. For instance, parents or children of a celebrity who are otherwise unremarkable are generally covered in a section of the article on the celebrity, and can be merged there.

standard is met

Both pages are short and are unlikely to be expanded due to likely short lifetime of the podcast "TBTL." If this podcast has a longer than expected lifetime based on media reports, the idea of two unique articles could be revisited.

4.Context – If a short article requires the background material or context from a broader article in order for readers to understand it. For instance, minor characters from works of fiction are generally covered in a "List of characters in <work>", and can be merged there; see also WP:FICT.

standard is met

as the articles are now written there is existent overlap; the merge-to article was the highlight of the subjects career

Bluecanary99 (talk) 03:05, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Reasonable rebut of standards 2, 3 and 4 (not just one or two of those) will be necessary to prevent merger. Please note opinions below this line.

---

MERGE. For reasons previously enunciated, I support merge. Bluecanary99 (talk) 03:06, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose The articles seem to be covering totally different topics and this show meets WP:N based on the two AfDs that it has survived. The overlap is not particularly clear to me, the bio should definitely contain mention of what has happened to the show but that doesn't mean that there shouldn't be a separate article about the show. Neither article is "very short" so citing point 3 is irrelevant. I don't understand why there is no context either - the article about the radio show makes perfect sense without knowing who the presenter is. Smartse (talk) 11:46, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose merger per reasons stated by Smartse. Both subjects have received significant media coverage, both are worthy of articles.--Arxiloxos (talk) 23:59, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
• comment Don't care about a merge.. but frankly something needs to be written about this. I've read this twice and I have no idea what this radio show was about besides a couple people talked about their weight. I have no idea what the context of that was, why they did that, or what else went on for however long this particular show went on.--Crossmr (talk) 16:08, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Has passed 2 AFDs, and fufills all requirements for its own article. Also could we reach a consensus before people start merging and redirecting articles, thanks --Gold Man60 Talk 01:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
• Support —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.170.59.139 (talk) 19:01, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose merger per reasons stated by Smartse and Gold Man60. As well, though it may not be relevant it seems that an automated bot such as the one directly above this should not have the authority to sign. 71.227.189.119 (talk) 03:20, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose merger. The the same way the twit.tv network and Leo Laporte are separate articles, TBTL and Luke burbank should be separate. They are both hosts who started on the radio and ended up doing mostly if not all podcast. --Promovi (talk) 21:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose merger. In proposing this merger, Bluecanary99 demonstrates very little understanding of what a "podcast" is. "Due to the short lifespan of the podcast?" If WiKi represents facts and not opinions, then you should stop your proposals to merge Luke Burbank with TBTL based on your opinion that the "lifespan" of the podcast will be "short." And why does the (most likely faulty) opinion of the expected lifespan of the show even play into the decision to merge?

A better way to deal with this is to amend TBTL page to denote that it is now an ongoing podcast. Wait wait.....that's already done!

Moreover: TBTL is a show. Luke Burbank is a person who has done other shows.

Do you merge Bob Barker with "The Price is Right?" Why not merge Bob Barker with Drew Carey, and in your faulty logic, Bluecanary99, TPiR with Seattle Sounders, since 1) Carey hosts TPiR and 2) partly owns Seattle Sounders?

Adam Carolla, Adam Carolla Radio Show (no longer exists), Adam Carolla Podcast are all Wiki pages. Wherefore, Bluecanary99? Don't see you wringing your nerdy vindictive hands about that Wiki debacle....

Pardon my lack of Wiki etiquette, but merging the page for an ongoing show with the page for its host is completely moronic.

TBTL is a show that currently draws @150,000 downloads a week. Perhaps those who think a podcast is a show with automatic "short lifespan" need to have their central nervous system software updated to the 21st Century. Jimhsuseattle (talk) 21:49, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support merger. Obviously comparing a local radio show to "The Price is Right" is ridiculous and the ultimate in "moronic" statements (to quote the previous, very anger-inspired contributor). Also, the figure of "150,000 downloads a week" can't be considered in this discussion without a source citation. If that were true it would, quite simply, be one of the most successful podcasts in history. If it is, there should be no problem finding a third-party source to support that statement. Also, I checked this podcasts blog and it gets 0-3 comments per post. That's not indicative of a trend one would expect with the most successful podcast in the history of podcasting. Finally, the extreme WP:CIVIL violations of many of the other contributors posting in opposition to merger leave their motivations highly suspect. Fangoria 1983 (talk) 23:49, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Oppose merger, and most of all oppose one sad individual scheming against TBTL under multiple names. (Fangoria: prove to me you are not Bluecanary99.)

"150,000" is the number of downloads per week as mentioned on TBTL by Luke Burbank during his show with Anthony Bourdain (October 5, 2009, TBTL).

Fangoria's post above shows that Fangoria has no clue the scale of podcast downloads in general. For example, Adam Carolla's show got 1.5 million downloads its first week (http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/too-beautiful-to-litigate/Content?oid=2242400), and Carolla said his podcast currently gets 500,000 downloads a week (TBTL, 9/14/2009). That's a pretty successful podcast program, but nowhere near the top, so Fangoria's calling "150,000" as "quite simply, one of the most successful podcasts in history" only shows ignorance and has no foundation in fact. Fangoria actually mentioned that in jest, so Fangoria's subsequent points that were based on the jestful assertion that TBTL must be, "quite simply, one the the most successful podcasts in history" are all without any substance. Ignorant jokes with faulty information are no solid foundation for sound argument on WP (my citation: see Fangoria's post above).

If Fangoria asserts it is that easy to find third-party verification of the podcast downloads per week, then Fangoria should have found it to prove my quoted information incorrect. Failure to do so only highlights Fangoria's inability to back up opinions and made-up assertions of his/her/its own.

Fangoria also claims that most blogs on TBTL.net Website have "only 1-3 comments" as unsubstantiated proof that downloads per week must be low. A visit to TBTL.net Website proves that Fangoria is again incorrect at best, intentionally misleading more likely: the very top blog today on tbtl.net, 10/18/09, has 13 comments, and most blogs have 3-10 comments. Not only is Fangoria wrong with this very easy-to-check information, likely counting on others' taking the misinformation at face value and not bother checking, Fangoria also provides no objective method to correlate Web blog comment numbers to podcast listenership numbers. A blog is secondary in importance to a podcast-based community and therefore the number of blog comments cannot have any logical connection to the number of downloads per week. Quite simply, the blog is just not where the action is.

Personal opinions without citations as reasons to refute others' information has no place in WP, and Fangoria should be well aware of this before posting. Posting in anger, jest, or just plain ignorance is no excuse for shoddy, unsubstantiated and/or misleading information, Fangoria/Bluecanary99. Insinuations about opposing poster's "anger-inspired" motives are also pure speculation, which by the way is most of Fangoria's post above, as it turns out.

Cheers, and rawr. Jimhsuseattle (talk) 03:03, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL violation reported. Secretoffatima (talk) 15:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I do not support the merge. I don't think there's enough overlap and as someone has pointed out, the host has done other shows so it wouldn't make sense to merge the host's article into this one. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 08:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Support merger ... if this podcast isn't very popular, like Jimhsuseattle says, it should be merged into a parent article. Perhaps discussed for notability? (Also, the host of a podcast isn't a third party source.) Finally, the entire "TOO BEAUTIFUL TO LIVE" article is repeated - verbatim - in the merge-to articles body. Why the need for duplication? Secretoffatima (talk) 16:11, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The current duplication of text is because an IP user attempted to effect a merger of Too Beautiful to Live into Luke Burbank, without prior consensus. The blank-and-redirect of this article was reverted, but the changes at the target article have not been, yet. Assuming (as currently appears to be the case) that consensus continues to oppose merger, those changes at Luke Burbank can and should be reverted. Notability has been discussed ad infinitum, and this article has been kept in two AfD discussions.--Arxiloxos (talk) 17:49, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Support merger - the only logical choice —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.170.59.138 (talk) 02:34, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose merger. Bugbox (talk) 04:02, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment I find it suspect that the above comment was left by a computer with a IP address only 000.000.00.001 off from the IP comment farther a above also supporting the merger EDIT: and both IP address are registered to FedEx Kinkos --Gold Man60 Talk 02:31, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment I agree with above comment, and would highly suggest - if this has not already been taken into effect, that non-registered users are not counted, for the simple reason that it would be too easy to make a bot to append such edits to the page. Roi300 17:25, 29 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roi300 (talk • contribs)

Podcast vs. Radio show

I did a bit of a rewrite/rearrange to the article, per WP:BOLD. The old version seemed to emphasize the defunct radio show over the current podcast, which, after having gone on for 4.5 years, seems like the more currently notable version of the show (the original radio version only lasted for 1.5 years). Liam3851 15:03, 15 April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liam3851 (talk • contribs)