Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Webster

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:25, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Webster

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

I am afraid this fails WP:NBIO. The subject had an average career, and does not seem to have received any awards, nor held positions that grant auto-notability. There is also not much in the terms of in-depth coverage, through it does seem that his brush with death and medical operation generated some interviews/coverage ([1]), [2]), but I don't think that is sufficient (WP:ONEEVENT, WP:INTERVIEW). With all due respect, I am not seeing what makes this individual notable. Not all journalists, even the ones that get on TV, are notable (see also WP:CREATIVE). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:04, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:41, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:41, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:41, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:41, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:41, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:42, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:42, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is a reasonable amount of "media personality" coverage but it is all very routine. Sure they have "done a good job" but I see nothing that makes them notable, awards, specific creativity, etc. Aoziwe (talk) 07:22, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete Typical local newscaster coverage but nothing to show he's more notable than tens of thousands of other TV newscasters.Sandals1 (talk) 22:45, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable as presenter of long time presenter of national television show {Sports Tonight). -- Mattinbgn (talk) 06:43, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable host of news bulletins, Sports Tonight and radio programs. Reliable secondary sources exist and meets WP:CELEBRITY -- Whats new?^(talk) 06:53, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question for above two keeps. Sorry I have to ask, but what is the basis for the assertion that the subject is notable? Have they won, eg, a Walkley or a Logie? Regards. Aoziwe (talk) 13:08, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Winning an award is not the only criteria. WP:CELEBRITY states "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards...Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions....}} which I would contend he has. But it is in vein anyway because this is always overlooked and such articles are always deleted so I really am becoming disponded with engaging anyway -- Whats new?^(talk) 02:10, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Based the past few AfDs that you mention, I'd think that it is becoming a WP:COMMONOUTCOME that being a host of a TV show or a news presenter does not constitute "asignificant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions". Truth be told, I would personally veer towards 'it may constitute' for TV show hosts, who are after all named, and sometimes even have the shows named after them. But for regular news presenters (anchors), who are generally anonymous speaking heads to the rest of the world, I don't think this constitutes much for notability. Here is another way of thinking about this: people watch some shows (movies, etc.) not because of the plot or such, but because of the actors/hosts, the names are what drew them to the show. This is what makes one a celebrity. Is this the case here? Webster was a host of the Sports Tonight (Australian TV program), one of several. Did people tune in to the show for him or for the sport news? Since AFAIK he didn't get any awards or coverage of himself as the above-average host, I think it is the latter, which means I do not think he passes NCELEBRITY or such. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:18, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well then an RfC to change the wording of WP:CELEBRITY might be something worth doing sooner rather than later. As its written now, I think he qualifies. It doesn't state the host has to be a certain level of popular or winner of an award. It states "significant roles in multiple [productions]" and I would think hosting a national sports television program, sports anchor on the primetime news bulletin, and hosting multiple radio programs (especially his current role taking over from the legendary Bob Rogers!) meets that qualification. Establishing notability shouldn't be about being more popular than someone else with an established article, it should be about meeting a notability requirement independently, and I think he and others similar meet this. I appear to be in a minority, at least at AfDs, but that's my view. -- Whats new?^(talk) 02:40, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly notable to any person in Australia that owns a television. The deletionist arguments perplex me. If we begin deleting articles like this one, where does it end? Do we delete Sandra Sully, Narelda Jacobs, Charmaine Dragun, Brad McEwan, John Stanley (radio broadcaster) ? Unoc (talk) 02:44, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(I own a TV and I have never heard of the subject. I have heard of some of the others above.) Aoziwe (talk) 03:47, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember this is not a vote. Can you word your argument in policy? Because you are just saying WP:ITSNOTABLE. As for links to other articles, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is again not a valid argument. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:14, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, my argument was lacking. My belief that this article has enough merit to remain on Wikipedia is based on the facts that this person has had significant roles in multiple television shows and radio programs and has been the subject of numerous comedy acts in Australia, referenced in Internet memes demonstrating a position in the public consciousness and popular culture. Meets the criteria for WP:CELEBRITY. Unoc (talk) 10:53, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article references show significant coverage in reliable secondary sources hence passes Notabilty. - Samuel Wiki (talk) 07:27, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Samuel Wiki: Could you clarify which references show significant coverage? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:10, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] - Samuel Wiki (talk) 09:25, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are beginning to sway me. Do you have any more? I suggest that the Steve Irwin ref is not at all a serious one, at least one of these seems to be BY Webster so does not count, and a couple are behind paywalls, but there are few good ones too. Aoziwe (talk) 10:44, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Even excluding those you've mentioned, there is more than enough sources to meet WP:BASIC requirement of "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources". The other references used in the article with less significant coverage also add up to further demonstrate notability (first bullet point of WP:BASIC). - Samuel Wiki (talk) 01:25, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[11] - nice find, half interview, but the other half seems like proper analysis, so I think it passes.

[12] - I think this is more about the show and not about him, with the subject being discussed in passing, so nope.

[13] - almost entirely based on quotes from the subject, so fail.

[14] - reads like press relaase, so fail

[15] - half press release, half quotes from the subject, fail

[16] - this is written by the subject, so complete fail per PRIMARY

[17] - seems effectively based on the above and/or an interview with him, and contains too much quotes and not enough independent analysis IMHO to constitute in-depth coverage, also focuses on a single incident in his life, so further fails in-depth

[18] That's a more serious (less quotes, more analysis) treatment of the same incident. Reliable, but again focusing only on a single incident from his life. Can someone be notable when majority of coverage is about WP:ONEEVENT?

So, bottom line, I see one good source, and maybe 1-2 more borderline that are ONEEVENT-ish. Sorry, I am afraid I stand by my nom as I don't believe sufficient coverage has been found to invalidate my claim made in the OP. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:32, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:30, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sources brought by User:Samuel Wiki meet WP:BASIC, WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:48, 19 March 2019 (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.