Talk:K. C. Armstrong

This article was nominated for deletion on 24 April 2007. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

VFD Result

The result of the VFD can be found here: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/KC Armstrong -- AllyUnion (talk) 03:07, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm glad that this article was not deleted. Note that KC is active on the show again, and while he feels more like a whack packer now, his history as a show associate producer and everyday character justify his continued page. I was vaguelysurprised at the tone of people who said things along the line of, he might have needed an article at one time but he no longer rates one. To me this is like saying, "Well, Reagan no longer needs an article, after all, he is no longer president and he is dead, who cares?" Paper encyclopedias have all sorts of biographic articles about long dead and fairly obscure people - and reading them can teach an astute person who was important in the past, and therefore a little about the people of the time. The electrons are recycled. This was not an egoboo article added by KC himself. I hated KC as a character and it still should be here. Simicich 06:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV?

I agree. It does feel biased to make this such a prominent part of his article, considering that NYC was virtually deserted on 9/12/2001. Mister Tog 20:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This feels NPOV; the article reads like an attack on the guy. Citations? And I'd like to tone down the language "embarrassed himself", etc. Janet13 00:17, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this could be offset by a section about his positive contributions to the show? I believe he discovered Richard Christy, for example. Gamiar 11:14, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this article feels NPOV as well. I also believe that it needs to conform to a higher standard of quality. Ajwebb 17:21, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a long time fan of the Howard Stern Show (Wrote the original alt.fan.howard-stern FAQ - and newgrouped that newsgroup way back when -) and a much less active Wikipedia contributor. I had stopped listening 4+ hours per day over the summer. The language of the article, while strong, is also accurate. KC did embarrass himself. Do you have language that clearly expresses the fact that KC embarrassed himself, which is not as strong? (If you don't believe that he did embarrass himself, that is a valid point of view - but I believe that he did, even if he didn't realize it at the time.) I had actually done a search to determine if KC had previously admitted that he was in Rehab, and found the content valuable.

The Howard Stern Show is a reality show. The people who are show regulars, including the people who have titles such as "Producer" or "Writer" are also show characters. As show characters, their personal lives are generally grist for the mill. As an example, it recently became a point of discussion that Scott, the person who is in charge of the wires, gadgets and tape edits (Referred to as Scott the Engineer) had "cheated" on his current wife. Even though his primary responsibility is to keep the microphones and pots working, and to insure that edits are done properly, he is also a show character and was forced to provide a "revelation".

KC was a producer. But he was also a show character - and it is likely that his most important contributions were as a character rather than as a producer. As a character, KC was a Train Wreck - he seemed to be addicted to gambling and, as we have now learned, drinking. He seemed to be learning disabled in some unusual ways. He seemed to have homosexual tendencies, of which he was in denial. Being a train wreck is not a bad thing when you are a Howard Stern character. I agree that there could be a section about his positive contributions - but many of his positive contributions were things like, "KC discussed his gambling addiction. Howard tried to intervene - but KC denied that he had a problem - even though he had lost his tuition and expense money for the upcoming term." This kind of thing reads like an attack on KC - even though it was a positive contribution to the Radio Show by KC. Simicich 18:22, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to take this out of NPOV in a month if I don't see any objections here. Simicich 06:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KC is a personality still intimately linked to the Howard Stern show. Integral to his persona were his fitness and looks. Accordingly, a sourced discussion on the Howard Stern show noting that KC had gained weight and was no longer physically attractive is a valid contribution. This change has now been reverted twice with no discussion by Bill Matthews without any commentary, despite my posting my reasons on both occurrences. Nowhitenoise 19:34, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Something said on the show does not make it true. Please read the statement at the top of this page "This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.". If you can site a reliable source then maybe it could stay. But even still, his weight doesn't seem to be notable for an encyclopedia article. --Bill.matthews 00:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In response to the Bill Matthew rationale for reversion, that "on-show comments are not enought", lets parse the overall entry:

Section entitled "The Howard Stern Show" - every single entry is based on an "on-show comments"

Section entitled "Departure from Howard Stern Show" - every single entry is based on "on-show comments"

Section entitled "Current Life" - every single entry is based on "on-show comments", except for one link to his website

Is this surprising, that sources for on "on-show" radio personality are based on his "on-show" radio appearances and commentary?

Lets be specific on the last since that is the section Bill Matthews keeps deleting:

- First Par - Reference to his website (the only source); commentary on the fact that he accepted pre-orders and has not shipped - all "on-show" references

- Second Par - specifically references "on-show" calls KC has made ("Armstrong called in..,"

- Third Par - again, based on an "on-show" episode ("during a telephone interview on the Stern show")

- Fourth Par - again, based on an "on-show" episode ("During the ensuing phone interview of both by Howard")

- Fifth Par - mine, same context, an "on-show" commentary ("On the April 18, 2007 Howard Stern show, Howard stern and other staff members opined that K.C. was now "overweight" and "no longer good looking")

So what gives, Bill Matthews has no rationale... Nowhitenoise 19:34, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - I never deleted your comments, and I did add my own. Please make additional comments here at the bottom of the page, and please sign your posts. I agree most of the content of this article should be removed as unsourced. However your comments about his weight are irrelevant, and not notable. Save it for a fan site or message board. --Bill.matthews 02:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The weight discussion is clearly not libelous nor controversial, so the above reliable sources items are not relevant. Plus, KC Armstrong, as an on air radio personality, further qualifies as a public figure.

Where a public figure is closely aligned with health and looks, the fact that they have gained weight is relevant, and notable. Examples include Anna Nicole and Kirstie Alley and many others. It may not be relevent or notable to you, but that is not the measure, and you should not be imposing your own views of what is frivolous.

In fact, the weight and looks are even more critical for KC, since ALL the other aspects of his life were out of control. He thus served as a walking example that just being good looking doesn't make for a successful life. Many other characters on the Stern show have similar allegorical properties. Thus the fact that he is potentially no longer good looking is very relevant to his public persona.

Nowhitenoise 14:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Point of clarification - I had not previously realized Bill had made comments here, as I am new to Wikipedia commenting. So I would like to withdraw my more argumentative comments above, and the claim that Bill made changes without dialog. I do stand by my changes as being relevant and notable, but I do so in good humor and with full respect for Bill's positions.

Nowhitenoise 18:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP

There's a notice on the top of this page about how we have to be cautious about sourcing in an article on a living person like this one. Per that, I have massively cut down the article to a bare-bones stub. What's there should be sourced as soon as possible. The previous state of the article read like an attack on this person, which is NOT acceptable if it doesn't come from source (and in any case, must meet WP:NPOV.) Mango juice^talk 18:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gossip Column n ot factual information!

I have never been more disappointed in Wikipedia content. This is not factual and shows tears down a character of someone more than anything else! I will be going live on vide3o about this distasteful gossip column. I have lost respect for the excellent work Wikipedia was known for.

www.shannonknight.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:AE8D:1200:50F8:2086:4FE4:9D51 (talk) 14:03, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]