Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cabbie Richards


 * 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   keep. (non-admin closure) Wine Guy  ~Talk  08:19, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Cabbie Richards

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Host of half-hour tv show on marginally notable Canadian cable network. Unreferenced BLP fanpage; does not meet WP:CREATIVE or WP:BIO. Typical WP:PUFF sentence from article: "In July 2009 Richards was invited to participate in the 5th annual Kevin Weekes Celebrity Charity Golf Classic hosted by Kevin Weekes, the golf classic was held in Barbados from July 2-6." THF (talk) 02:24, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Since the article is on a person and not a show (sorry THF), it will benefit from cleanup and proper sourcing of individual who meets WP:GNG for coverage from 2001 through 20210. Sources dealing with the individual... Toronto Star 1, Los Angeles Times 1, Canoe, Toronto Star 2, Canada.com 1, Toronto Star 3, Toronto Star 4, Toronto Star 5 , SLAM 1, SLAM 2, Toronto Star 6, Toronto Star 7 , Waterloo Record, Toronto Star 8, Sportsnet, Toronto Star 9 , Report on Business, Canadian Coprorate News , and Newswire, et al. would allow consideration that bringing this article into line with WP:MOS might be seen as a surmountable issue.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. I checked the first three of your sources, and none of them provide anything encyclopedic, and only one, the Canoe piece, is actually about Richards, though it provides no useful information that can really be in the article other than that "Richards is from Toronto."  I'm not inclined to try to read through the other twelve.  What's your best example of an article that demonstrates notability?  Don't just throw a ton of mud at the wall and demand that it stick.  THF (talk) 21:32, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well... fair enough. I struck the ones editors would have to pay to read if they do not have accounts. Of the remaining, some deal about the man in depth, and others speak about or mention him and his work. Still enough to show the man meets WP:GNG and that the article could be improved.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 07:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Analysis. Keep in mind this is after I asked MQS to remove the WP:PUFF from his list.
 * Canoe: This is an interview with Richards, but it's astonishingly contentless.
 * Toronto Star 2: Richards has a TV show.
 * Canada.com 1: Interview with Richards, but again contentless. He thinks Saskatoon is cold.
 * Toronto Star 3: Mentions Richards in passing in article about The Score.
 * Toronto Star 4: One sentence about Richards (really about his show)
 * SLAM 1: Richards gave a hockey player a pair of underpants.
 * SLAM 2: Not about Richards.
 * Waterloo Record: Short profile of Richards from which one could create a stub.
 * Toronto Star 8: One sentence in an article complaining about "third-rate comedy" on sports channels.
 * Sportsnet: Not about Richards.
 * Report on Business: Not about Richards. He'll be at a charity event.
 * Newswire: French version of Report on Business press release.
 * Conclusion. One can wikilawyer a claim that this meets WP:GNG, by taking the one substantive article and creating a Frankenstein from all the passing mentions and joking interviews, but not a claim that this meets WP:BIO unless one disregards WP:NOT. MQS, your argument would be much stronger if you didn't insist on including the obvious WP:LARD in your lists.  When you give articles like this as a reason for notability, it demonstrates the exact opposite.  My opinion does not change: delete. THF (talk) 12:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Conclusion. Reaching a consensus without inclusion of animus is why we are at this AFD. The nominator, as the person wishing deletion, has offered his personal analysis of sources I shared after a cursory search.  Others may determine that the subject's being covered or even mentioned or even referred to for many years in reliable sources meets WP:V for some pieces of information and perhaps even the GNG overall... specially as the guidelines do not mandate that all sources must be specifically about the subject.  Since even the nominator grants that one of the sources might support maintaining a stub, and as guideline instructs that even a stub is acceptable if sourced, the cleanup of an article through regular editing is a surmountable issue and not cause for deletion.   Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 18:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * You seem to misinterpret meeting WP:GNG as requiring the non-deletion of an article. WP:NOT says otherwise, as does WP:GNG itself. THF (talk) 18:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Did I misinterpret this comment "Waterloo Record: Short profile of Richards from which one could create a stub."?  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 18:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a necessary, but far from sufficient, rationale for a "keep" !vote. Wikipedia is not a directory. THF (talk) 18:58, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * My "rationale" is that the subject is notable (even if only minor and only to Canadians) and that the article would benefit from cleanup and sourcing. And it's good that the article about the person is not a directory.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 19:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * And worth mentioning in regards his minor notability to Canadians, as reported by the Alliston Herald], the the man was chosen to be part of several Black History Month events in February 2010, as representating  African-Canadians.  Yes, another minor mention, but required per WP:V and speaks toward his notability.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 19:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.  — Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 19:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  — Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 19:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions.  — Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 19:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep per references provided by MichaelQSchmidt above. They don't all relate to this person, but the following ones do, and seem sufficient for notability: ,,, , Robofish (talk) 00:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Plenty of coverage.  D r e a m Focus  05:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, for starters, cable networks aren't "marginally notable". A cable channel with strictly local distribution may be marginal, but one which has national carriage rights, as this one does, is unequivocally notable. That said, that doesn't necessarily mean that every single personality on the network is notable — WP:NOTINHERITED and all that — but the determination is made by the depth and quality of sources, not by subjective assessments of whether we care about Canadian cable sportscasters or not. The sources here seem to demonstrate sufficient notability, so keep — but make sure that they actually get added to the article, as I've far too often seen people trot out sources to prove notability in an AFD discussion without actually doing anything to get them into the article where they belong. Bearcat (talk) 23:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Per the sources, although I hear what THF is saying. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 06:40, 27 February 2010 (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.