Talk:Ted Williams (media personality)

Childishness with the close box

As it has been unfortunately kept, this is now the talk page of a WP:BLP article; not another battlefront in the inclusionist/deletionist wars. As far as I can recall from other articles that have snow-closed or whatenot, we just do simple "keep", "delete", "no consensus", etc... Puerile garbage such as this should earn the editor a block, but we also don't need qualifiers such as this either, regardless of who the closing admin phrased it. A keep is a keep, a delete is a delete, we don't need to attach qualifiers for all-time to a WP:BLP. So please, all, smarten up. Tarc (talk) 14:52, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps this is something for another user to say? DivideByZer0 (talk) 03:12, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm just wondering why the keep/delete discussion lasted for so little time. Many other editors such as myself would have wanted to voice their opinions. Oh well. Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 03:41, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Merge discussion

Probably need to merge the article about Doral Chenoweth, III with this one since his notability seems tied to this article. -- 68.97.117.233 (talk) 21:01, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Done.Tktru (talk) 21:23, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

CNN on 4th

There is missing the CNN capturing on the 4th January [1] --Franz (Fg68at) de:Talk 23:28, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Delete

Sorry guys, don't mean to be a wet blanket, the guy's story is remarkable but I am not sure about the notability of the article as part of an encyclopedia...maybe we should add this to another article? List of viral videos, etc? Let me know, for now I am just adding a deletion template. Thanks --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 02:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with many of your points, but adding a deletion template may not necessarily be the answer. Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Alternatives to deletion might provide a better explanation than I can offer. -- 68.97.117.233 (talk) 03:15, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Guys please don't delete the deletion template. Thanks --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 03:28, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

My understanding is that if the AfD discussion is closed, then it is OK to remove the template from the article. I saw that the AfD discussion was closed and removed the template code. Why should it be left there if there is no ability to discuss it? Again, I would prefer that editors use the processes recommended by Wikipedia, as I have indicated in my comment above, Camilo, you didn't, and whoever closed the AfD *ALSO* didn't. So how about we use the consensus/discussion approach here in the Talk page first, rather than just jumping hastily into things? -- 68.97.117.233 (talk) 06:32, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, an admin is supposed to remove the template:"...for KEEP: Remove the AFD Header from the article (be sure the AFD Category is also removed)..." Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:51, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. But I wish people would stop putting articles up for deletion so frivolously. I described an issue with the Doral Chenoweth article (he's the guy who videoed Ted on the highway), and another person saw it and took action to *move* the Doral article into this one. I didn't have to recommend deletion. I simply gave a set of logical reasons here in the Talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.97.117.233 (talk) 15:15, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

This article is awful has issues

Youtube links? Blog refs? Missing image? The subject is not encyclopedia-worthy at all. This is exactly what shouldn't be on Wikipedia. This should be in the guidelines as an example of what should not be here.

When is the earliest possible time for me to nominate this off the project? Maybe this will be a good guide, when it drops to 2 hits per day, in a week or so. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:55, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Rather than just complain, how about adding some content or improving existing content. Exactly what should be on Wikipedia is excellent content, created by people who are willing to improve it and diligently edit it. -- 68.97.117.233 (talk) 03:10, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Complaining is what makes Wikipedia great. :) Of course I should speak up about this. And, I don't want to contribute to this article because I don't think the article should be here in the first place. Happy editing. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:14, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Its very logical that this might be moved to a page of something like 'one-hit wonders of the viral Internet age' or something. I'm not completely sure what you might call it, but collectively these types of events seem (to me) to have a place in Wikipedia somewhere, but perhaps not as stand alone articles like this. -- 68.97.117.233 (talk) 03:18, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

That's a good point. I wonder if there's such an article. I would be happy to start one with you. It might solve the problem of long discussions over the existence of these kinds of articles. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:21, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I hope I didn't offend any newcomers with my comments. I'm not crazy about the subject, but am very grateful for your contributions. Please yell at me or bug me for help any time. Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry for such harsh comments. I overreacted because a dozen editors all fought for its existence voting keep. Then, when I visited the page, I saw several Youtube links, at least one blog link, the missing image redlink sitting right in the infobox, and many other glaring issues. 40,000 visitors saw that in the past 24 hours. And, nobody was doing anything about it. Instead, they were all quarreling over if the AfD tag should be removed. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:20, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Deletion renomination

Would it be wise to re nominate this article for deletion? I think most people that said "keep" might have been a little biased by the heat of the story in the news. --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 03:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

It's still at 40,000 hits a day, and thus is useful. I suggest giving it a week or so. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:57, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

If you really do think that way, then you'll need to do to Wikipedia:Deletion review, rather than trying to AfD again since those nominations are likely to be speedy kept even quicker than the original nomination was, owing to a lack of time in between nominations. Although I really don't see why you'd want to get rid of it, an article like this could probably easily get a spot in WP:ITN. TheChrisD ^{Rants•Edits} 04:01, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

• It would be silly to renominate it so soon. Wait a few weeks at the bare minimum. In the meantime we have many biographies that need help much more urgently than Mr. Golden Voice, please see Wikipedia:Unreferenced BLP Rescue. Cheers.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 04:46, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Why in the world was the AfD closed so quickly? I saw this guy on TV this morning and went looking for this page figuring that someone had already written an article about him and an AfD would have already been issued. I had no idea that the AfD would have been closed already! That Jet Blue guy, Steven Slater, got about 10 times more press than this guy but that article got deleted as a one-time event. No idea how this guy is any more notable than Slater. This guy will be largely forgotten in a week, while there will be jokes made about Slater for years. 76.99.122.143 (talk) 14:56, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

• Steven Slater really wasn't deleted, everything that was famous about him moved to JetBlue flight attendant incident. The AfD was closed by an admin and bureaucrat, you'd have to ask why, but I assume because similar to Balloon boy hoax, its almost impossible to get a consensus to delete while it is hugely popular.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 17:49, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think this article should be deleted. This guy is more than just a one-hit wonder. Considering that he is getting hired by the Cleveland Cavaliers to do voice-over work and he has several high-profile advertising gigs in the works, he is certainly someone who is getting more than fifteen minutes of fame. Unless, of course, you want to delete all sports announcers and voice-over artists from Wikipedia as being irrelevant.152.133.13.2 (talk) 18:32, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

AfD template

Now that it's closed, shouldn't the template be removed? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:03, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

It's a good reminder that the article was nominated, and what the result was. Having the template at the top discourages frequent re-submission as it is clear on what date it was originally made. —Sladen (talk) 05:08, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I see. Fair enough. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:39, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Is there a reason that is apparent to someone as to why some people feel the need to simply delete articles without a prior discussion as to their merit (as per deletion guidelines)? It seems to me that if people were willing to work through a diligent process, you wouldn't have AfD tags coming and going and wouldn't have an unnecessary one just sitting in the page, as suggested above. How about we leave the article standing long enough for things to get discussed, and deal with concerns, here, in the talk page. It might take longer, but it is more likely we will get reasonable feedback and thought. -- 68.97.117.233 (talk) 15:09, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

New York Times article about Williams

Zinser, Lynn (January 6, 2011), Cavaliers Give Hope to Voice, The New York Times {{citation}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help).

Cheers, postdlf (talk) 05:36, 7 January 2011 (UTC)