Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al Kaprielian

:{{la|Al Kaprielian}} ([{{fullurl:Al Kaprielian|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al Kaprielian}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

Non-notable local weatherman on a local station. Awards are minor, local in nature as is his coverage. Not much different than 1000 other local weathermen Niteshift36 (talk) 06:11, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Execept that's he's a local legend in New England, and has 25 years of longevity at one of only two commercial stations licensed to the state of New Hampshire carrying programming targeted towards that state. The sources are there and I'm sure many more will be found by the end of this nom. Nate • (chatter) 07:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
• Local being the key word to me. I'm sure there is plenty of local coverage or mentions of his name. What makes him different frm any other local weatherman? Niteshift36 (talk) 07:52, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:58, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
• Comment I wasn't aware that national or global coverage was a necessary requirement for notability? The coverage is given by daily publications. Yngvarr (t) (c) 12:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

:trueHistoricist (talk) 22:56, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

::*There are a couple of weathermen, per station, in almost every market in the US. Each one goes and does his job every day. Some stay in an area for a long time. That is not the notability that qualifies. If I wrote a recap of high school sports every day in the local paper, it would be "daily publication", but that wouldn't qualify me for an article. I simply can't see how some mentions in local human interest stories and telling people what the days weather will be meets the criteria for wp:CREATIVE Niteshift36 (talk) 12:51, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

:::This is a false analogy. The Boston Phoenix is not comparable in any way ot a high school newspaper.Historicist (talk) 22:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

::::I didn't say a high school newspaper, I said high school sports. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:34, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 20:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep and sigh All I had to do was type his name into google. Right on the first page there was an article in the Boston Phoenix (not in his local area) explaining why this weatherman is different form all other local weathermen. But my larger point is, why be so eager to delete the article. Suppose the guy was merely a beloved local figure who tells the weather and explains meteorology to the local kiddies. Why not give him a page? What, we're short of pages? We don't even have to chop trees down to get paper. and big sigh it would be nice if USER:Niteshift36 and others who do AFD tags would think before they type. A high school athlete whose friends put up a page for him is one thing, but when there is a chance that the chap is notable (this one is on TV, why not help the newbie authots (DON'T BITE THE NEWBIES]] to create better articles? Instead of immediately hanging an AFD on the page, send instructions to everyone who has created or edited an inadequate article explaining what kind of sources they need to bring. Or run a quick google on the name. I believe that the aggressive tagging with AFD's is so unpleasant to new editors that many give up in on editing. We need to be a little more patient with one another. And - dare I suggest - some people who hang a lot of AFD tags on plausible but inadequate articles could actually add a little content to the encyclopedia in stead of tagging plausible but poorly sourced articles with an AFT.Historicist (talk) 21:35, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

:Sigh to you too. The fact that we don't need paper and the idea of "murders have pages" so why not nice hardworking guys is a strawman. There are notability guidelines for a reason. If you bothered to read the article (which you apprently did not do very carefully), you'd see that his station is carried on cable into the Boston area. In fact the very first sentence of the article says it is carried in the greater Boston area. I'm not sure how you managed to add content but miss the first line, but it appears you did or you wouldn't say a Boston paper is not local. It is in his LOCAL viewing area. Further, Derry, NH and Boston, MA are less than 50 miles apart (even fewer air miles). 50 miles isn't exactly "not local" now is it? Now, to address your not too subtle comments to me. If you bothered to look, you'll see that I've nominated less than 15 articles for deletion in the past 2 years. Probably less than 10. So to make it sound like I do nothing but look for articles to delete is not only factually wrong, but certainly not wp:AGF. And what is this "newbies" bit? The article has been here since January. It's not a 2 day old piece. Further, it looks like the article had been deleted before since the edit summary on the first entry is "he's been on the air for decades for gods sake.. how more notable does he need to be?" So I must not be the first person to question his notability, just the one who actually acted on it. Now if you have a further gripe with me and my activities, feel free to move them to my talk page and not litter the AfD discussion with your personal views on the handful of AfD nominations I've done over the past couple of years. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

::*TLDR, but I think the basic argument is that the person is covered in non-trivial terms, in multiple non-trivial sources, which appears to satisfy general WP:BIO guidelines. Yngvarr (t) (c) 22:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

:::Just so Historicist (talk) 22:42, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

• I look at a "lifestyles" piece in a free newspaper (Boston Phoenix) that calls itself an "alternative weekly newspaper" and consider it trivial. I also consider the Weekly New England Travel and Vacation Gazette (which is essentially a blog) to be trivial. The Boston Globe (which is not trivial) article is not about Karpielian, it is about the station. He is mentioned in it, but not the subject. The New Hampshire Union Leader article is no longer available online. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

:The Boston Phoenix is one of the grandaddies of alternative journalism in this country. It does investigative, political, and, yes, and serious lifestyle reporting. Why the snarky attitude? Why the need to run down highly regarded newspapers? Do you know anything about the Phoenix, or did you dismiss it form ignorance. I really. truly beleive that this kind of nastiness is very discouraging to people who might make good editors.Historicist (talk) 22:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

::I just looked. The Boston Phoenix has the typical, lousy Wikipedia article that gives the reader little hint of the newspaper's history, reputation, and importance. A poster child for the need to encourage people to edit here by being nice to them a, and helpful. And good heavens, we're being nasty and dismissive about a television weather forecaster. Why cannot Wikipedia be collegial and supportive?Historicist (talk) 22:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

• Being old makes the Phoenix more relevant? Why snarky? I'll address personal comments on your talk page and request (again) that you do the same and keep them out of the AfD. Notability guidelines are POLICY and there for a reason. I'm sure Kaprielian is a nice guy, works hard and might be entertaining to watch. That is not what makes someone notable for inclusion. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

: I did not say that being old makes the Phoenix relevant. Grandaddy means that the Phoenix and a couple of other papers in the sixties begat modern alternative journalism in this country. What I wrote was the Phoenix is a serious newspaper that does important "investigative, political, and, yes, and serious lifestyle reporting" A profile in the Phoenix is a reliable index of notability.Historicist (talk) 23:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

• I have stated why I disagree. I'm not here to debate the history of the Phoenix or it's place in alternative journalism. I don't feel a lifestyle piece in a free weekly paper (regardless of its history or size" is that notable. And it still goes back to local coverage, which I find less compelling than national coverage. You disagree. Fine. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. But I'm from New Hampshire, so that probably doesn't count, even though I don't watch the TV station that he's on. The Boston Phoenix is as notable and influential a free weekly lifestyle newspaper as The Village Voice. Perhaps an article in there would also not be notable enough? --Ken Gallager (talk) 10:29, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per meeting the incluson requirements of WP:GNG and WP:BIO by even a cursory [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?um=1&ned=us&hl=en&q=%22Al+Kaprielian%22&cf=all G News search]. Whether for a few dozen million or a few hundred milion, notability is notability if it meets guideline. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - Not sure if there hasn't been some canvassing going on with respect to this nomination.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tyrenon&curid=22883263&diff=295378803&oldid=295280000] Rlendog (talk) 14:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
• What makes asking someone to render an opinion "canvassing"? Have you read WP:CANVASS? The request was neutrally worded. It simply asks the editor to look at the AfD. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
• For some reason, you chose to leave your note to an editor who claims on his user page to be a "proud deletionist/reductionist," who makes no claim I can see to a particular interest in the particular topic of the nomination. See the "Votestacking" section of WP:CANVASS: "Votestacking is an attempt to sway consensus by selectively notifying editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view or opinion (which may be determined, among other ways, from a userpage notice, such as a userbox, or from user categorization), and thus encouraging them to participate in the discussion." But if there is some reason you chose to inform this particular user of the AfD for some reason other than the view on deletions he expresses on his userpage, then I apologize for my comment. Rlendog (talk) 15:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
• As I pointed out on your talk page, I listed several AfD discussions for him. 2 are contested, the others are well on their way to deletion. You ignored that and only left your "warning" on the 2 that are contested. No warning posted on the ones that the community is clearly voting to delete. There is no logic in your selectivity. If you feel there was "votes stacking" on 2, it should have been on all of them. If the same neutrally worded message was not "vote stacking" for the others, then it isn't for this one. In other words, your actions betray your excuse. Further, I didn't even look at the editors userpage, I went straight to his talk page, having seen him involved in several of the AfD discussions I participated in today. Feel free to check and see that I've OPPOSED some AfD's from that particular editor and haven't ever posted to his user page before. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
• I only left comments (not warnings) that I am "not sure" if canvassing is occurring on the pages for which any canvassing would be relevant. For the 2 that are obvious deletions, who cares whether or not any canvassing is occurring? Why bother leaving a comment on those? And I don't see why you would want me to - if my comment was incorrect (or even if it was correct), I wouldn't think you would want me to repeat it to an even wider audience. Since you state that you did not read the editor's user page and say that you were unaware of his clear deletionist sympathies when you left the note, then there was obviously a misunderstanding, and I retract my comment. Rlendog (talk) 15:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
• It's pretty simple. If "vote stacking" was happening, then it was happening on all the ones listed, not just the 2 that are contested. The fact that I listed several, including ones that, by your own admission, didn't need his vote at all, should have given you pause and reason to WP:AGF instead of selectively making assertions of wrong-doing. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per Nate's comments. I don't think Niteshift's comments about the sources being local (or even the guy's reputation being local) is an issue at all. There's a very active debate on WP:NLI and I know I and many other editors feel the same way that I do--that local topics and local sources are just as valid. The issue in notability, as I see it, is significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, so as long as the sources are reliable and the coverage significant (and it's hard to argue against this when there's extensive coverag in the Boston Globe), then he meets WP:N. I also did my own search and found more sources, it's very easy to find them and they point to this guy being solidly notable. Cazort (talk) 21:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. From the WZMY article: "WZMY is well known in New England for Al Kaprielian. His quirky, offbeat style has made him a minor celebrity in Southern New Hampshire. As a result of his popularity, he was a "Guest Meteorologist" on The Weather Channel's Abrams & Bettes: Beyond The Forecast on November 10, 2006." ( Disclosure: I'm a NH resident). hydnjo (talk) 22:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

: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.