Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evans, Novak, Hunt & Shields (2nd nomination)


 * 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 no consensus. Stifle (talk) 15:47, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Evans, Novak, Hunt & Shields
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Now that the television discussions have died down some, I figured it was time to revisit this.

Since the first AFD, I have done a second search for "Evans and Novak" + "CNN" and "Evans, Novak, Hunt, and Shields" and variants thereof. I used Newspapers.com, Google News, Google Books, and ProQuest. To a one, every hit I found was either a directory listing, a passing mention of some figure being on the show, a transcript of the show, a statement from the show being cited in an unrelated work, or false positives on unrelated works in which Rowland Evans and Robert Novak collaborated. Not a single source said anything about the show more substantial than X said Y on Evans and Novak today. The show may have journalistic merit, but this is not the same thing as notability; as said in another AFD, a source can be reliable without being notable.

As I said in the first AFD, it's massively telling that the show doesn't even have an IMDb page, nor can anyone seem to agree on when it started or ended. One article even claims the show became The Novak Show in 2006, which contradicts other sources stating that it ended in 2002. For a show's timeline to be this muddy despite an alleged 20-plus-year run is quite telling.

In the first AFD, cited an entry in The Complete Directory to Prime Time Network and Cable TV Shows, 1946-present, but this is a barely one-paragraph entry in a television encyclopedia and does not warrant WP:SIGCOV on its own. Also presented were two obituaries on the hosts, but these only mentioned the show in passing. The last source given was catchall article on various news talk shows that only mentioned Evans Novak and Whatever for a single sentence. Questions about the reputability of these sources went unanswered. I am still not convinced that an encyclopedia listing and two obits give the show notability on its own. Rowland Evans and Robert Novak were clearly notable journalists, but the show isn't automatically notable just because they are.

The first AFD saw every participant calling for a different result, and discussion abruptly died off with no further participation even after two relists. As a result, the first AFD closed as "no consensus". It is my hope to find a consensus this time. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:14, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:14, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep I did not cite a television encyclopaedia, User:TenPoundHammer; I cited the NY Times and the LA Times. There was no consensus to delete this a few weeks ago, and I see absolutely no point in resurrecting it again. Even if it's not kept, how is this not a redirect? Nfitz (talk) 22:22, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I explained this. You cited two obituaries and a "capsule" article, all three of which only mentioned the show in passing. When I questioned these sources in the last AFD, you went completely silent. Personally, I find it a waste of time when I start an AFD and it suddenly goes stone cold silent for two weeks. Re-nominating after a "no consensus" is a perfectly valid move if the argument to delete is still valid, which I feel that it is. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:30, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Can you point to where I mentioned a capsule article/encyclopaedia? Because I don't see it. As you noted in your response (which wasn't a question and didn't tag me) I assume that you hadn't read the articles I mentioned, as you were clear that there was one Proquest reference, not the two I noted. Also you claimed that it was just a trivial namedrop - which is also not true for the LA Times article - with over a dozen reference to Novak, even though the article was about Evans! Given all the false claims you make, I'm not sure why I'm beholden to respond to your last word - when it's clear clear that you are just making stuff up. Nfitz (talk) 00:27, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * This is the article that I considered a "capsule". It only mentions Evans and Novak in passing, in the greater context of other similar shows. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 00:31, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Where did I cite The Complete Directory to Prime Time Network and Cable TV Shows, 1946-present? Nfitz (talk) 17:50, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * ETA: There was no consensus to redirect, either, which is another one of the reasons I re-nominated. Do you still feel that the sources you cited are valid? Because I still do not believe them to be sufficient for the reasons I stated above. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:31, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I never said there was a consensus to redirect; though why a redirect wouldn't be the automatic default for such an article. Yes, I still feel the sources are valid - which is why I said keep above. And I still think you are completely wrong about nominating this for deletion. Nfitz (talk) 00:30, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Politics. WikiVirusC (talk) 23:15, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - I realize there's no timeframe after a no consensus result before another discussion can take place, but I feel a month and change is too soon. If last edit was the closing of deletion discussion, these concerns could of just been brought up on talk page imo. Personally from what I've found I feel Evans & Novak could have an article on their own(as duo), in regards to their work in in writing together and working on television, and this rename and such could be expanded into that, that ain't my vote but an option for future. Anyways back to keeping, The Times Tribune has sigcov, Spearfish Star has 2nd paragraph covering the show itself, USA today had a small blurb that Bill Clinton did a video tribute to the show's 15th anniversary . Ignoring that Larry King wrote it, as I'm focused on the fact a sitting president did a video tribute for the shows anniversary shows notability is/was well established. 30 years ago there were a lot more newspaper, and a lot less internet, and if we are able to find a few articles that made it to an archive, we can assume there are more out there. Regardless passes WP:GNG with what we have found, so as I said keep. WikiVirusC (talk) 01:20, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is a multi-page article in the Washington Post. For this and the discussion above, I'm happy that there is enough WP:SIGCOV to meet WP:GNG. Here's some other stuff that might be helpful to others. There's this in Politico.This, which I believe is a repub of a New York Times article, looks useful. There are several collections at University libraries, that are only accessible in-person. We don't need them to establish WP:N, but if anyone wants to pursue...,,, there was one at U of Wisconsin, but I lost the link. Oh, did anyone talk about the book references? I'm not going to bother, to me this one is a cut-and-dried keep. More digging is fruitful, everywhere you look. Jacona (talk) 19:39, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Where were all you guys last AFD? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:10, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * the volume of AfDs is just too much. AfD is not my life! Jacona (talk) 21:09, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Pretty sure I added the old AfD and article to my watchlist with plan to search for stuff later, but there wasn't any activity either place until the closing so it never bumped up on my watchlist and I forgot about it until it was nominated again. WikiVirusC <b style="color:#008000">(talk)</b> 22:18, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * TPH, you literally prodded and AFDed hundreds of articles. You can't both do that AND complain that people didn't defend it better last time. Nfitz (talk) 07:35, 8 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete no sources found, unlikely to find anything further. The show existed (and I have a vague memory if it), you can find a three line mention in TV Guide online and it seems to be indexed in Library and Archives Canada. That said, we'd likely need paper sources to be used to prove notability. Oaktree b (talk) 00:17, 5 July 2022 (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.