Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bob Lampert


 * 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. signed,Rosguill talk 01:00, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Bob Lampert

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Once again an unexplained and completely incomprehensible DEPROD, WP:BEFORE via Google gave absolute 0 results, lacks WP:GNG, WP:BIO, the presented references are either death links or do not mention the subject at all CommanderWaterford (talk) 10:16, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 10:16, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:46, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:46, 22 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:28, 22 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment What caught my eye was the two Emmy awards (which the PROD did not mention). I've done some investigation and have found enough coverage to confirm the general nature of the topic – that the person had a career in photojournalism and TV in California.  The difficulty is getting at sources from the pre-Internet era.  I'll tag it for rescue as there are others with better access to US sources. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:23, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Where is the reference for the two Emmy awards? It is not cool to say is two Emmy awards without references to support it (after an extensive search) and the single tiny mention of two words, in the picture index doesn't prove he was a Life photographer. There are no references for the Golden Mike Awards either, and the ultra-low quality prabook reference is not worth mentioning.    scope_creep Talk 
 * Bob Lampert. You delete a reference, put in  "citation needed" and then raise the issue on this talk page.  Here is the answer to your question.  7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 12:57, 22 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete - first Prabook does not appear to have any editorial oversight, indeed on their "about" page, they compare themselves to WP and Linkedin. As they say, "Prabook is meant to preserve information about people. And it is done by people." Second, this article could probably have been deleted through G12, has it is very closely paraphrased from the Prabook piece, which I assume is where they get the Emmy reference.  But since Prabook is not a RS, that assertion is unsupported. A generic search on Emmys.com yielded no results, if there were a year mentioned, we could go to that Emmy year. If indeed he was an Emmy winner, that would make them notable.  But without direct reference to that...  Onel 5969  TT me 13:23, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep I've had another brief browse and found a couple of accounts of the subject's reporting activities: LA Times (1990), San Diego Reader (1984). Policy WP:ATD applies, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." Andrew🐉(talk) 13:38, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment You are very free to improve those articles you are "rescuing" like you call it while de-prodding w/o explaining nor informing the ones who PRODed them, unfortunately I have not seen any article being improved by you where you participated in an AfD Discussion in the last couple of weeks. Regarding your ATD Policy citation: "This SHOULD be done", it is by no means a must and here also impossible. CommanderWaterford (talk) 13:53, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * They are passing mentions and fail WP:SIGCOV, and relying on a prabook reference, is wide of the beam. Anybody can create an article on prabook, there is no editorial control nor peer review. It is effectively non-RS. At the moment, most of the article is hearsay and conjecture.   scope_creep Talk  14:22, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * User:scope_creep Duly noted.  If you choose to not take this to the talk page, you are being WP:Disruptive.  That you want to stack the deck while an AFD is pending does not help.  And your threats (on my talk page) are duly noted.  Take it to the article talk page.  Certainly we can discuss the reliability of this particular source in a civilized manner.  And I have no illusion that it would make any difference one way or the other at the AFD.  But you need to lighten up; this does not need a heavy hand, or the use of brass knuckles.  7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 14:32, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * if a source is a WP:RS or not can be discussed at the WP:RSN, I personally go by Scope_Creep's Opinion, Prabook is freely editable, fails at very first sight prerequisites for being a RS. CommanderWaterford (talk) 17:35, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I've actually never encountered that source before. You would think with 136+k edits that wouldn't be the case, but I have no recollection of running across it.  Anyway, if it's unreliable, and on contentious issues, we probably shouldn't use it.  I personally don't necessarily agree with 'policy' that all wiki-based editing is inherently unreliable.  E.g., I find that Find a grave finds graves very well, and folks nattering about that are tiresome.  Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.   7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 18:09, 22 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment Article created by Celkins9 who made no other edits ever. Article then edited by Leicapic created an article for Charlotte Elkins, I assume that who Celkins9 is, and edited it along with Aaron Elkins ‎and Bob Lampert and that's it.  Single purpose accounts.  A newspaper.com search has no results for "Bob Lamper" "emmy".  There is no evidence he ever won an Emmy for anything.  Nor any results for "Bob Lampert" "Golden Mike Awards" from newspaper.com, and not finding anything in Google news for him winning either awards either.  This could all be just a fake article done by someone who knows the person.  Google search for site:https://www.spj.org/ "Bob Lampert" to search the website for the award Sigma Delta Chi Award has no results, nor can I find anything about him winning that award anywhere else.  This fake information was put in when the article was first created.   D r e a m Focus  15:26, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment http://www.sdpolicemuseum.com/Hall-of-Fame.html confirms he did win the Legends Behind the Badge Jose A. Cota Award. So some of the article's claimed awards seem to be true.  Not sure how notable of an award that is considered, if it adds to someone's claim to notability.  The claim that The County of San Diego, California further honored him by proclaiming March 9, 2001, the day of his retirement, Bob Lampert Day. seems rather ridiculous and I find no evidence of that anywhere on the internet.  Since the person who created the article is known to have lied about the emmys and whatnot, I have doubts about that and various other things listed.   D r e a m Focus  17:20, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It seems they have local emmys and they don't list them anywhere that appears in searches. So maybe that was true, just no evidence about for it.   D r e a m Focus  21:25, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:BIO. I did a pretty extensive search before I proded it, and couldn't find anything of worth. I did find one reference but it was mentioned in relation to another persons article. There was nothing.  scope_creep Talk  15:35, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - The only non-trivial mentions of this individual are in completely non-reliable sources. The only argument for notability for this individual is the awards he supposedly won, but I found no evidence that these actually happened, nor does it seem like anyone else has either.  Dream Focus' extensive detective work above makes it seem that the information on the awards, which again is the only thing that could possibly be used as a claim of notability for this individual, was completely fabricated.  Rorshacma (talk) 16:23, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Regional Emmy Award Regional awards exist, and do not receive much coverage, only local. See Los Angeles Emmy Award Pacific Southwest Chapter awards (which includes lists of nominees and winners – going only back to 2000, the 30th awards) and Pacific Southwest Chapter of the National Television Academy.  I think that the claim of "fabrication' is untoward.  These awards (we have no dates), easily can go far far back, and trying to uncover coverage is problematical.  We are talking about a fifty year professional history. One cannot say with certainty that water babies do not exist, unless you have seen them not existing.  User:Dream Focus I would recommend that the phrase "known to have lied about the emmys" be retracted, if not redacted.  We ought to not impugn the character of editors without real evidence.  WP:AGF. FWIW. <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 16:41, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * FWIW, today I wrote to the Pacific Southwest Chapter of the National Television Academy and asked them to please provide information on the claimed Emmys.  Maybe they will respond; maybe not.  <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 16:08, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I received a reply to that inquuiry from MaryEllen Eagelston, Awards Chair. I have edited out my name and e-mail addresses: Bob Lampert received 2 Emmy Awards while he was working at KGTV. See below for the name and category. For Wikipedia, you would use the word Received, or was Awarded 2 Emmy Awards. Regional Recipients are not notated as Winners as there can be multiple winners in any category.

Bob received these Emmy Awards when the NATAS-Pacific Southwest Chapter was referred to as NATAS-San Diego Area. If you have more questions or need to verify anything else, please let us know. Thank you. San Diego Area Emmy Awards 1982 Outstanding Achievement: Cinematographer/News "Bank Robbery" Bob Lampert KGTV

San Diego Area Emmy Awards 1986 Outstanding Achievement: Investigative Report "Fugitive Sting" Bob Lampert KGTV

I will make an inquiry as to whether this was reported in local media and ask for clippings or references to them. I take her at her word. <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>)


 * Comment I think it exceptionally laudable that an attempt has been made to prove the Emmy's award question. However, I wouldn't say they are particularly notable as an award. According to the Regional Emmies they are handed out by 20 regional chapters, and it mentions different review committees indicating a very low-quality standard award, perhaps not seen as low-quality by the folk getting them, but from our position, it is far too low a bar to call it notable. They're in too many categories, unfortunately, to be worth anything. The  Golden Mike Awards, according to info from their site, are from radio programmes, not people, so they are not particularly notable either, in this instance. According to the Sigma Delta Chi Award article, there are 48 categories presented every year, which is also remarkably low in terms of prestigiousness. It is junk really. It has been presented, but it, not an award that can prove to be notable, there are too many being given out. So with 10-12 hours of work to get it to satisfy the Heymann standard, gets us back to the passing mentions. There is simply not enough there for me. The first ref is a point source, proverbially speaking, the 2nd is a passing mention, in somebody else's context.    scope_creep Talk  20:28, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Awards alone do not make a notable subject. They also require multiple in-depth reliable sources about them that are independent of the subject. Which this person seems to be lacking. Also, from how it sounds the award is pretty trivial in the grand scheme of things. As it's a sub award of a sub award Etc. Etc. that is given out to a bunch of people who clearly don't deserve articles just for getting the award alone. So this a clear delete IMO. Unless good sources materialize. In the meantime though, it would be cool if someone (preferably 6=thirteen) could fix the formatting of 6=thirteen's comment at the bottom of this so it doesn't detract from the AfD as much or potentially confuse anyone. Thanks ::Thumbs up emoji:: --Adamant1 (talk) 21:34, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Adamant1 Sorry, but I don't know how to "fix the formatting." I was merely passing on what I was given.  While I appreciate your concern, I can't help with it.  Sorry.  <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 22:31, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It's cool. Not like I do either. Just thought id ask though. Maybe someone else can do it. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:57, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Bob Lampert page up for deletionLeicapic (talk) 19:16, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

I have received a notice and do have material that will update the things pointed out but I'm not sure of how to do it as someone else set this page for e ,any help would be greatly appreciated..thanks in Advance Bob Lampert  Leicapic@aol.com  I've attached several pictures..



I received this on my talk page. Should take care of the factual questions, IMO. <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 20:02, 28 March 2021 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.