Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rich King (sportscaster)

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. (non-admin closure) -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 02:22, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rich King (sportscaster)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. The article has had zero third-party sources that establish any notability for over two years, and searching online has yielded none either. The article fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. - Sudo Ghost 05:13, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Typically, I would vote to delete a weekend sports anchor. In this case he has won some regional awards. I am not sure that these are sufficient to pass WP:N. I am inclined to think so, but am hesitant. They must be properly sourced for me to endorse a keep.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:34, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:18, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:18, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a ref for the Emmy. (He actually won in 1998, not 1996.) I don't think a local Emmy alone would be enough to establish notability, since so many awards are handed out. But it's better than nothing. The full list of winners (going back to the 1950s) is available here: [1]. Zagalejo^^^ 08:33, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep His book My Maggie did receive some national attention ([2], [3]), and there are plenty of Chicago-area sources to help flesh out the details of his broadcasting career. Zagalejo^^^ 07:05, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The MSN source would establish notability for a book, not the author. The second source is too trivial to establish any notability at all. - SudoGhost 05:50, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - In past AFD discussions, press coverage of a book was understood to confer notability upon the author. (That book/author distinction is particularly difficult to make in this case, since My Maggie is largely autobiographical.) And to clarify, the second link is just an abstract; I found the full article here, and while not substantially longer, it goes beyond "trivial", IMO. Anyway, when I add all the little things up, I'm content with keeping an article on King. Zagalejo^^^ 06:14, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm not aware of any such prior consensus, but WP:AUTHOR makes no such concession and what has been written on the subject of notability being conferred specifically says that "notability is not inherited up". As an author, the article's subject fails WP:AUTHOR. As a general person, the article's subject fails WP:BASIC. An article or two on a book does not make the author notable. The article does not meet any of the criteria given by any relevant notability guidelines, - SudoGhost 06:20, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well, I've said what I want to say. WP:NOTINHERITED and the other guidelines are open to some interpretation, and I happen to think the sources available are good enough. I'll let others chime in. Zagalejo^^^ 07:32, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Where are these past AfD discussions you are referring to? You've said what you wanted to say, but you haven't backed up those claims. As is stands, what you've said runs contrary what Wikipedia consensus on the matter and every single notability guideline. - Sudo Ghost 17:17, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, I tried looking, but I can't immediately find an AFD that is an exact parallel to this one. In the specific discussions I had in mind, the writers also had entries in Gale's Contemporary Authors. Still, WP:AUTHOR does say, "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." Which, as I see it, says that an author can draw notability from the material they write. Of course, there are several words in that quoted sentence alone that are open to interpretation ("significant", "well-known", "subject", "multiple", etc). It's possible for different people to come to different conclusions as to what all that means. That's why AFDs can be closed as "no consensus".
        
        Since you drew me back into this discussion, I will clarify that I don't think King's notability comes solely from My Maggie. He's also been a sportscaster in a major metropolitan area for several decades, and one can find information on his news career from the various Chicago newspapers. (And not just the Tribune, which I know is associated with WGN. The rival Sun-Times has reported on King, as well, and I did try to throw in a few such references into the article. I won't claim that those references are major biographical pieces, but they do provide enough info for us to piece together where he has worked over the years.) Zagalejo^^^ 01:49, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Zagal. TBr and ley 05:22, 14 November 2012 (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.