Talk:Ted Williams (voice-over artist)/Archive 1

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 --Franz (Fg68at) de:Talk 23:28, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

New York Times article about Williams
.

Cheers, postdlf (talk) 05:36, 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)

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)
 * I agree that a discussion prior to deleting something is a good idea. The process could be called "AfD". 17:42, 8 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wenttomowameadow (talk • contribs)

Childishness with the close box
As itrbage 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)
 * WP:not news. We must delete this ASAP or we're damned.  Oh wait, just kidding. 141.161.127.75 (talk) 06:16, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

More news
for those of you working on this article, this story seems to be important to include. Kingturtle = (talk) 19:06, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Or this one. Hanz ofbyotch (talk) 01:23, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia isn't a news site, and certainly doesn't source things from gossipy magazines. I've already removed the same story posted by the LA Times. If it doesn't relate to his situation and fame it doesn't go in. Wenttomowameadow (talk) 01:44, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course it relates. The entire reason this guy is famous is because he's had many run-ins with the law and is trying to turn his life around through a career as a voiceover announcer.  So having another run-in with the law relates to his reason for fame.  An analogy--if a famous actor gets into a minor fender bender where no one injured, it's not encyclopedic.  If a random guy receives a bit of short term fame for writing a book about how he's gotten into 200 lifetime car accidents, and the same day he appears on national TV he gets into a fender bender on the way home, that's encyclopedic since it relates to his reason for fame. 76.99.122.143 (talk) 12:16, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * So if he becomes homeless again it would be relevant. He's famous for being homeless, not famous for being arrested over petty violations. Wenttomowameadow (talk) 16:20, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

On January 13th an independent filmmaker named Zach Daulton released his comedic parody of the video that caused the success of Ted Williams. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j38Lp5fAdf8 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.100.34.216 (talk) 06:36, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It will simply never be on Wikipedia, because we don't include spam. Wenttomowameadow (talk) 06:40, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Dashes!
There are WAY too many dashes in this article. I'm not usually fussed about grammar but this is pretty annoying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.57.64 (talk) 15:59, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Official Site
Let's not add this link to the article until we can be sure that it is actually official. Wenttomowameadow (talk) 21:58, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * See Elno for reasons why it shouldn't be included unless it's definitely official. It fails right away at point #1 and #11. We need a better reason than "it doesn't have advertising". Wenttomowameadow (talk) 22:44, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Web site link suitability
I believe that this link is unsuitable, failing WP:ELNO guidelines on at least points 1 and 11, but other editors believe it is suitable. More voices needed to discuss this. Wenttomowameadow (talk) 22:50, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The contact page indicates that this is a self-published fansite, failing ELNO 11, and the user who is adding it has a conflict of interest (similarity of the user name to the name of the copyright holder of the site). January   (talk)  23:30, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well-spotted, I'm now going to treat this as self-promotion and will remove the link on sight. Wenttomowameadow (talk) 23:44, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * While you've probably just got this under control, I want to concur with January and OP--there's no doubt that this fails WP:ELNO, and continuing to add it violates WP:LINKSPAM and can result in the people adding it being blocked. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:57, 21 January 2011 (UTC)