Deletion of Dave, Shelly, and Chainsaw

Comment: Whenever I see an article on a radio show that includes a list of listeners that call into the show or bits that are frequently featured, its hard not see the article in a  light and to doubt the notability of the subject.  This article has a number of references to a reliable source (The San Diego Union), but what I notice there is that this seems to be the only reliable source available.  Why is that?  San Diego is market number 17 with a nearly 2.6 million metro population in the Spring Arbitron book.  San Diego print media is dominate by that paper but there are a number of community newspapers in print as well as all major television networks.  Why no coverage there, in such a large market?  Radio stations or individual shows often have relationships with print newspapers and it makes me wonder if that is why there is coverage in the Union and nowhere else.    I'd like to suggest this article be merged into the station's article but since the show has moved from station to station, thats not ideal. Unreferenced and fancrufty sections need to go (movies, frequent callers). I'd also like to see more references here from a wider variety of sources.  If that happens then keeping the article would be reasonable
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fancruft (WP:FANCRUFT)

Comment: I still have a couple of concerns regarding the sourcing of this article:1) The content provided at the moment can all be sourced to articles from the ''San Diego Union Tribune''. While this is a reliable source, this only counts as one source, per se, per the third bullet of . This is what I was referring to by there being very little out there. After all, some of the sources mention the show (such as http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/sandiego/access/1243992371.html?dids=1243992371:1243992371&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Mar+18%2C+1998&author=Don+Norcross&pub=The+San+Diego+Union+-+Tribune&desc=HE+CAN+PLAY+|+Cookie+never+crumbles+in+basketball&pqatl=google and http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/sandiego/access/1243334031.html?dids=1243334031:1243334031&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=May+16%2C+1997&author=JOHN+FREEMAN&pub=The+San+Diego+Union+-+Tribune&desc=Show+funny+despite+3-D+crock+from+the+%60Sun%27&pqatl=google), but don't seem particularly relevant, especially when attempting to establish notability.2)  seems to apply as well. As alluded to in the nomination rationale, all of the available sources seem to be from local media (such as the ''Tribune''). It would make sense for local media to write about a local radio show (especially in the local paper's arts/lifestyle section, as is the case with some of the articles), regardless of location, size of market, popularity, etc., but that really does not serve as a good indicator of notability, even with the alleged controversies about this show... perhaps INT|local interest and/or newsworthiness. However, what makes this particular show encyclopedic/notable, as opposed to any other local radio show? That is what is unclear from the sources
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:LOCAL||WP:LOCALINT)

Comment: did the nominator actually look???'' Please, is it too much to ask to |assume good faith in this nomination? Yes, I did look at the sources Google News, etc., provided. As indicated in the nomination, all I find are mentions in local media that are trivial coverage about the show's cancellation, its renewal, or other incidental coverage. Nothing that actually establishes notability of the show itself or substantiates any of the content in the article itself... just brief mentions about its demise/return, for the most part, along with other sources in which the show is mentioned. Being "well known in San Diego" does not establish notability. I fail to see how posts in the "Opinion" section of signonsandiego.com or brief mentions in other articles constitute reliable source coverage. Instead of a borderline |personal attack, why not point out the reliable sources? If it is "clearly notable," then |fix it
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Assume good faith (WP:AGF||WP:NPA||WP:SOFIXIT)