Talk:The David Pakman Show

Paternity leave

Are you insinuating that Pakman's husband gave birth to a child? I believe some clarification is in order here. --73.236.177.244 (talk) 20:31, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Copyvio speedy deletion reverted

I reverted Jheiv's speedy deletion template addition because the article does not meet the Speedy Deletion criterion "there is no non-infringing content on the page worth saving." The correct handling is specified at WP:COPYVIO/WP:Cv101. Rostz (talk) 05:45, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
I see User:Dpakman91 (talk | contributions) has made many edits to this page, so it's possible or even likely that the show's host himself substantially wrote the article text in question, which would explain its similarity to the external page. That complicates matters; it might help if the external page had an appropriate Creative Commons license notice placed on the external page. Rostz (talk) 06:09, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I suppose whatever wasn't a copyright violation may have been worth saving in some people's eyes, but given the lack of context that would have resulted, and the creator and main contributor's apparent conflict of interest, I would suggest the page be deleted, and then remade by editors without a COI if appropriate. jheiv ^{talk contribs} 06:56, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Public domain content

I am an unpaid volunteer who helps out the David Pakman Show with internet stuff remotely and often updates the page with new stations, etc. The owners of the show have told me that content from their website is public domain, and modified or not, can be included in this article. What's the best first step to get the article back up and running? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.119.100.5 (talk) 22:10, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Great - there are two issues here: the copyright violation, and editors' conflict of interest.

• It may help to formally explicitly "free" the cited material that's on the show's website. Read the COPYVIO template that's currently at the article; the formal process for freeing source material is WP:PERMISSION, but I think you could just state those copyrights on the Davidpakman.com pages in question to more easily solve this problem.
• People associated with the show should be very careful when editing the show's article; please read through WP:COI. Freeing the material as above would at least allow other editors to try to salvage the article using the freed material.

Rostz (talk) 23:28, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks, I have contacted the show and they have emailed permissions-en@wikimedia.org releasing the content of the site for use, confirmed email was sent at 5:13pm EST March 6, 2011 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.119.100.5 (talk) 02:09, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Article is far too long, overly-detailed, and excessively promotional

Per WP:NOTDIRECTORY, I've removed the long listing of affiliates (which is especially pointless given that it's a copy of an official site page.) Much more pruning needs to be done; for an example of better handling of a similar topic's page, see The Young Turks (talk show). Rostz (talk) 17:16, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, I have removed the list of guests. If the appearance is notable enough, it warrants a section elsewhere, but who showed up at some time is really not encyclopedic. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 17:32, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

It has way too much self-serving linkspam. I'm going to pare down the "references" to anything that is actually necessary from the website, vs. using it for half of the references. LovelyLillith (talk) 15:51, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

merger proposal

I would propose to merge the article on David Pakman to this article. Both articles basically cover the same stuff, and Pakman is only really notable for hosting the show, and since it's pretty much a one man show, I don't really see the point of maintaining two separate articles. Hopefully we can merge an make it a higher quality one. Peregrine981 (talk) 09:45, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

In his own article there it mentions other things, it appears he is notable for other appearances: Pakman also works as a new media consultant, often working with independent programs and broadcast platforms. Pakman's first appearance on cable news came on April 4, 2014 with an appearance on Fox News discussing the controversial resignation of Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich.[1] Pakman subsequently appeared on CNN,[5] HLN's Nancy Grace program,[6] and HLN's Dr Drew on Call,[7] and was featured in Mother Jones[8] and the Boston Herald.[9] [4] Assuming those all have reliable sources, they'd be notable but not on this article that is specifically about his show. Somethings on this show articles page such as how he got mistaken for a dead teenager shouldn't be on this page, only on his personal article, it's related to him but not his show. Although maybe it's not notable. I think his TV appearances are tho. Popish Plot (talk) 20:17, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, simply appearing as a pundit does not make you notable by wikipedia standards, and neither does being a new media consultant. There are thousands upon thousands of such people without wiki articles. The show was started by Pakman and is to all intents and purposes a one man show (yeah Louis comments a bit, but Pakman is by far the dominant host), so I just don't see the point of separating the two until he's really noted for more than hosting the show. It would allow us to more easily keep an eye on the content and keep a higher degree of quality. But, I don't insist. Peregrine981 (talk) 22:54, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I think being a pundit makes one notable, it depends on how many appearances, are they notable appearances. Maybe 100s of other pundits deserve pages too but no one has made them yet. And I don't think it'd be so hard to keep an eye on the content of two pages rather than one. I don't insist either, I don't think this is the kind of think that should lead to controversy anyway. All I did here was check sources and they seem reliable to me. I say let's get a third opinion. Popish Plot (talk) 12:59, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

According to WP notability policy, merely being a pundit is not notable, unless you're covered in RS for that reason (which I see no evidence of). Also see WP:ARTIST for applicable policy. By those guidelines I think it's hard to classify Pakman as independently notable of his show (which does meet the general notability criteria). It's of course slightly subjective, but I just don't think he can seriously be said to meet any of those guidelines, and certainly not independent of the show.Peregrine981 (talk) 17:35, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

He's a pundit that happens to be notable tho. There are reliable sources, but what do you mean by not for that reason? Popish Plot (talk) 19:42, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I just mean that he isn't notable for his punditry. Thus he is only known really as a host of TDPS. Thus why there's no real added value to having a stand-alone article about him. Peregrine981 (talk) 21:13, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Ok I see. I was thinking both were notable because they both had reliable sources but now I see they are still connected. So might as well merge two. How about have the main page be about him and have a section of his page be about his show. Popish Plot (talk) 14:51, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Interesting question; I'm not really sure which would be best, but would actually be inclined to make the Show page the main page because Pakman is only known because of the show and not vice-versa. Peregrine981 (talk) 12:27, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

OK I don't think it matters either way. Popish Plot (talk) 12:29, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Article clean up

I've been going through the page and cleaning it up a bit. The article still has a number of areas that have insufficient sourcing, self-sourcing, or do not have sufficient sourcing to indicate notability (and thus why it should be included in the article at all). I think the next areas to focus on are the show's history (has a number of entries which probably shouldn't be included) and all the appearances (in the "Content" section, may need condensing or trimming if non-notable). aismallard (talk) 19:38, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

I've cleaned up a lot of the content section, removing primary sources and appearances which do not appear to be backed by any RS. A couple subsections within it still need pruning, but it should be in a much better state. The next two portions which need more work would be the opening and the history section, which are currently very long and not well-sourced. aismallard (talk) 03:24, 2 November 2022 (UTC)