Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ken Rice

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Cbrown1023 talk 03:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Rice

Ken Rice (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Ken Rice doesn't warrant an individual page Write_On_1983 talk | contribs 01:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Change to weak keep.
  • Keep Ken Rice is an award winning journalist. This page must not be deleted. Kd lvr 17:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This man is a great news anchor. One of, if not, the best in Pittsburgh. Also, Wikipedia is an online Encyclopedia and I'm pretty sure that you find people in an Encyclopedia —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kdkatpir2 (talk • contribs) 17:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete - Not every television news anchor deserves their own Wiki entry. There comes a point when standards need to be developed to issue pages. It's not anything personal about the news anchor, but rather an issue with making Wiki a popularity contest. Additionally, all of the information on this entry is from KDKA-TV's Web site. None of it is cited. --Write_On_1983 talk | contribs 18:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete it seems as only KDKA's people have wiki pages. Strong Delete, per nom --TREYWiki 21:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Refute If you would like to make a page on your favorite personality feel free to do so. 172.144.170.140 21:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Is this a joke or something? You actually said an article should be deleted because "only KDKA's people have wiki pages?" There is something going on here that has nothing to do with Wikipedia. This is a joke page, and/or a joke nomination. KP Botany 00:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If there is a problem with only KDKA personalities having pages (note that only award winning KDKA journalists have pages), can't you construct a pagw yourself? Kd lvr 21:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and New Pictures - I think this one should be kept as it is written well and not just a paragraph. I agree with TreyWiki, new pictures are needed. - SVRTVDude (VT) 21:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I agree with the nomination, and I want to ask seriously what our guidelines are for inclusion of local media personalities. Several people have mentioned the awards this anchor has won---but who gave out those awards, and are those organizations themselves notable? What are the standards for media and press awards in the area of local news in small and medium sized markets? I cannot claim to know, but I think we should find out before claiming that is reason enough for articles of this type to be kept. As I said earlier, all the cheerleading for KDKA aside, what is notable about a local news anchor? ---Charles 21:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete per WP:NOTE. And let's not have any more "awards, seems notable" arguements, esp. from the Wikivets, who know better? The newbies may have never read WP:NOTE, but you have. MULTIPLE, RELIABLE, VERIFIABLE, INDEPENDENT sources. For one. This guy, beloved and famous as he might be in Pittsburgh and Wisconsin, well written about as he might be on the website of his employer, is just /text/book not notable. To be less notable, he'd have to be 14 and have the sole source hosted at MySpace. Prove me wrong. If this article can be re-written to cite five indepentdent, reliable, verifiable sources that are non trivial, in-depth, and primarily about HIM (all from WP:NOTE), then I'm good with that. I'll change my vote to a Speefy Keep and move to close. --Wysdom 02:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question Please cite the link to this policy, "five indepentdent, reliable, verifiable sources that are non trivial, in-depth, and primarily about the subject?" Thanks. KP Botany 02:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Answer Did I say five was policy? I asked for five--because that would satisfy me that someone is notable. And for someone truly notable, five shouldn't be that hard to find. However, WP:NOTE says:

Generally, a topic is notable if it has been the subject of coverage that is independent of the subject, reliable, and attributable. The depth of coverage and the quality of sources must be considered in determining the number of sources required and whether the coverage establishes notability.

So, there you have independent. Reliable. Attributable=verifiable. Depth/quality =non-trivial and primarily about the subject (see WP:NOTE, foonotes 1 and 2) Unfortunately, the WP:NOTE guidelines seem to be undergoing on-the-fly revision by a quorum of about 3-5. Interesting. So I guess I'll refrain from explaining myself while the minority rewrites the rules for the entire community--Everything I'm citing could be invalid in 3 1/2 minutes. *sigh* So sure. I guess WP:NOTE says anything we want it to say. Moving on. Wysdom 19:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes, there is that fun aspect of Wikipedia. However, in general, please don't make demands for keeping somethin that are not policy, or have never been policy. Just stick with policy. KP Botany 23:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment WP:BIO does give awards as a secondary criterion for notability. WP:NOTE certainly does not specify "five indepentdent, reliable, verifiable sources that are non trivial, in-depth, and primarily about HIM". I've changed my vote to weak keep, as he isn't the most notable person here. Hut 8.5 14:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please see The Proposed Community Ban for Kd lvr and Kdkatpir2. Think of their comments invalid. --TREYWiki 15:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The proposed community ban has been withdrawn by its originator[5] who opted for an RFCU which was returned as a negative to the accusation of sock puppetry[6] and declined for further review due to lack of evidence. These accusations have been withdrawn or proven false. KP Botany 04:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep due to notability. A quick search find a couple of newspaper article [7] (a column criticizing Rice's moderation of a gubernatorial debate) and [8] (Rice's experiences used as basis of television pilot). There are probably more if someone had access to Lexis Nexis. Calwatch 04:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can't find anything notable about the man in the article, outside of his apparent popularity in Pittsburgh. Example of a major highlight: "He also reported on Super Bowl XXX and Super Bowl XL." Well now just exactly what is that supposed to mean? Was he there on National Television commenting with the other talking heads on the teams and players, doing play-by-play, working statistics, doing special reports on player-backgrounds? I think just about every television journalist in the US "reported on the Super Bowl" in some way - I hope that is not the sort of thing that automatically gets you a Wikipedia article. With respect to our beloved Pittsburgh fans, nobody has heard of the guy outside of the 'burgh. Same as Stacy Smith, also up for AfD. See WP:HOLE. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 12:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Your statement that "nobody has heard of the guy outside of the 'burgh" requires some sort of evidence. AfDs are not about what you assume or think, any more than the articles themselves are. Show some evidence that nobody has ever heard of them, rather than offering your personal opinion on the topic. Essays on Wikipedia are simply opinion, not policy guidelines, and in the end, it doesn't matter whether or not you would know anyone from a hole in the ground. What matters is if there are credible, verifiable, significant sources. KP Botany 03:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If independent, reliable sources exist, which they do in this case, the article should be kept. This ridiculous standard that some editors are suggesting be implemented that would require non-local notability is silly. If non-trivial sources exist, the article should too. DickClarkMises 14:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: per WP:BIO - criteria for notability of people for articles include things like:
  • The person has received significant recognized awards or honors.
  • Wide name recognition.
  • The person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field.
  • Multiple features in credible news media.
--T-dot (Talk | contribs) 14:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mm-hmm, and from WP:BIO: A person is notable if he or she has been the subject of secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. Rice passes this test ([9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15]) and ought to be included in Wikipedia. DickClarkMises 18:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ken_Rice&oldid=1071021743"