Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David L. Cook television appearances

: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 delete. Nja247 10:32, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

=[[David L. Cook television appearances]]=

:{{la|David L. Cook television appearances}} ([{{fullurl:David L. Cook television appearances|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David L. Cook television appearances}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

unsourced POV fork, fancruft. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 03:51, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete Why can't this simply be mentioned in the parent article? There are few occasions where someone's resume justifies a separate filmography or discography. In this case, a to imdb.com would be sufficient. Mandsford (talk) 02:35, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep This was created as to save space on the main page. Although you may have an opinion about this. This was done at the suggestion of several Admins when the article was going to WP:GA. So with that said, I do not find any wikipedia guideline that would preclude this page from remaining.This would certainly not be a POV issue and if so, please cite your reasonings for using that as a basis for this attempted AfD please. Canyouhearmenow 04:09, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

::I want to see where one specifically states that it is not justified to have a subpage for an artists television history. If this be so, then we must go through and delete all subpages which outline artists discographies and television works and simply place a source or reference tag that leads them to web pages. I think this arguement is ill based. Wikipedia is full of articles that have subpages outlining these very things. So, please show me where this article violates any of these guidelines.Canyouhearmenow 04:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

:::Biruitorul, I have just read the wikipedia cites you just gave and not one of them deal with subpages or fancruft that Rwiggum has cited as reasons for deletion. The subjest of this article certainly is more than notable and that releaves WP:V and WP:N. Since he is someone in the public eye, that would negate WP:NOONECARES and WP:LISTCRUFT. The articles subpage deals with the subject at hand so it certainly would not fall under POV or non notability. The only reason this subpage was created was that it was suggested by two seperate admins. So, since you have suggested these cites, please point out to the voters here exactly where these rules or guidelines would apply for reasons of citing them. Thank you Canyouhearmenow 04:35, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

::::OK, how about WP:GNG? "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." Cook has received such coverage, but not his television appearances as such. Nowhere does the list even attempt to assert notability. Shall we look at a few recently-promoted featured lists? List of pre-1920 jazz standards, Pritzker Prize, Mercury Prize, List of listed buildings in Runcorn (urban area): do you see how those lists do assert notability in a referenced lead section, have a bibliography, and so forth? In short, how they follow an actual guideline, WP:SAL? Not only does this one totally ignore that guideline, it doesn't even assert the notability of the topic. And that must be shown by "keep" voters; see WP:BURDEN for that. - Biruitorul Talk 04:57, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

:::::Cook is a multi Emmy Award winning artist which certainly gives his work in television the notability that it needs. I am unsure as to how this does not assert that notability requirement do you? Under your cite for WP:GNG shall we review its own language? "Often, a separate article is created for formatting and display purposes; however, this does not imply an "inherited notability" per se, but is often accepted in the context of ease of formatting and navigation" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canyouhearmenow (talk • contribs)

::::::But Cook did not win an Emmy for his work on any of these television shows. Just because someone wins an Oscar for directing doesn't mean we need an article about the short film they made with their friends in high school. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 05:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

:::::::This arguement is not sound! Can we say that when Coke changed its reciepe it was not important enough to put it into the articles mainframe? Of course not! It was that history that helped to build the company and therefore should be included into any writings about the company. The fact that someone has history, whether big or small, it helps to make up the larger picture. That is the purpose of an article about a WP:BLP. These facts constitute that subjects history. That is what we have done here. The only difference is that it has been placed on a subpage. We are doing nothing more here that tail chasing! I have no problems is you can suggest a way for us to include this history into the main article without changing its WP:GA status.Canyouhearmenow 05:24, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

:A list of all his television appearances would be inappropriate for the main article in the first place. Creating a separate article just makes it worse. Television appearances are in themselves not notable. What makes them notable is how they relate to the subject's notability. Thus the goal would be to write a killer biography section with compelling prose. Above all, a straight list of appearances is poor form for writing an article, more suited to a fansite site FAQ than an encyclopedia article. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:12, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Delete primarily per Biruitorul. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:37, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

  • '''Please note that the header has now been included and does reflect third party notability sources before casting any further votes. Thank you Canyouhearmenow 18:04, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. He won a regional Emmy for "Audio," and other nonperforming stuff, not as a performer. That's no reason to create a laundry list of all his TV appearances as a performer. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:37, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

::Whether he is the performer, producer, writer, singer or anything else, these appearances are still a part of his career as a whole. Again, when it comes to WP:BLP it is important to note that all of this artist efforts make his career in whole. So, the fact that he has made these appearances and has won awards in the television field should account for something. Again, I am not opposed to the page going away as long as the information is included in the mainframe of the subjects article. He also won an Emmy Award here> [http://www.fangsbites.com/2009/04/30th-sports-emmy-awards-winners.html] Canyouhearmenow 20:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

:::And it DOES account for something: It contributes to the notability of David L. Cook. It has nothing to do with his television appearances. notability is not inherited. Just because David L. Cook is notable does not mean anything related to him is notable as well. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 21:37, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

::David L. Cook, musician, is not David Cook, NBC sports production associate. [http://www.linkedin.com/pub/david-cook/4/755/8a4] So the guy in this article didn't win any sports Emmys.Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:18, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

:::Thank you for catching that. He has won an Emmy for a show he did with NBC but the source was incorrect. Thank you for catching that. Canyouhearmenow 13:38, 21 July 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.