Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katrina Cravy


 * 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. Reasonable people can differ on the extent of WP:GNG, but consensus here has concluded that the article subject does not met this requirement. Kurykh (talk) 07:43, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Katrina Cravy

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Advertorially toned WP:BLP of a single-market television and radio personality, who has a valid potential claim of notability but isn't even at the starting gate for referencing it properly -- every last reference present here is a primary source that cannot assist notability at all: her own website, her own LinkedIn, news content where she's the bylined author and not the subject. No prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can write and source it properly, but a journalist gets a Wikipedia article by being the subject of reliable source content created by other people, not by being the author of reliable source content about other things. Bearcat (talk) 05:30, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Done. Jkmarold55 (talk) 19:23, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, you seem like quite the expert Bearcat. Is her listing in the Emmy Awards PDF primary? You did state that "not one of them" isn't primary. This is just one example that you seem ill informed. I will continue to source the claims in this article, but no policies on Wikipedia are dire enough to warrant deletion. Jkmarold55 (talk) 12:06, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is. An award win or nomination has to be sourced to media coverage about the award nominations to count toward notability, not just to the awarding organization's own self-published content. It is, for the record, a regional Emmy nomination and not the national Emmys, so it would count toward notability if it were sourced properly — but the regional Emmys do not hand every nominee an automatic inclusion freebie, or an exemption from having to be sourced properly, just because the word "Emmy" happens to be present in the text. Bearcat (talk) 12:38, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Of course not, but it adds notability! Expand on sourcing. Expand on citation. It's easy. This page is barely 2 days old. Jkmarold55 (talk) 13:25, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * If you're the one who wants the article to be kept, then you're the one whose responsibility it is to add enough proper sourcing to get the article kept. Not me, not Domdeparis. It doesn't have to be a perfect featured article candidate right off the bat — but it is your job, as the page creator, to ensure that it actually meets a certain specific minimum standard of quality and sourceability right off the bat. Bearcat (talk) 13:28, 31 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete as per the nom. I personally tried to clean it up by removing the promotional non notable text and the promotional photos that do not add anything to the article but they were systematically reverted or added again by the page creator or an IP user who I suspect are COI editors. The reference to Reagan is anecdotal and the photo serves simply as a vanity element and suggests a close relationship that is not detailed in the article, but the creator insists on adding it again and again. the photo of the radio team adds nothing to the article and 4 photos on a small BLP is OTT and IMHO contrary to WP:IDD but the creator seems to be on a promotional mission and believes he owns the article. --Domdeparis (talk) 09:22, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete I'm in the market where the subject's main station is and I can confirm that they don't fit WP:N as WP:TVS sees it for local news personalities, and this is pretty much as a WP:RESUME. Honestly there's a high bar for local news personalities to get a page here (length of service, stories broken, appeal in community and outside work, and of course plenty of sourcing that isn't New York Post-like gossip about their existence) and it just is nowhere close to being met here (even though I enjoy the subject's work, but it's more appropriate elsewhere).  Nate  • ( chatter ) 10:19, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It was not my intention to have it toned like an advertisement at all, in reality, this deletion seems to be a personal issue. Classifying yourselves as the sole representations of Wikipedia policy on the website is unjust to writers, and inappropriate. I can easily bring up plenty of other news reporters on this site with less credentials and accomplishments than Cravy, yet they've been up on the site for years. This is not a resume whatsoever. I have no interest in promoting the subject, and there isn't any need for me to do so. I am happy to alter the language in any way you please, but this does not warrant deletion. Domdeparis, it is not your job to remove other sites that don't conform to your own beliefs. Cravy is a published author, accomplished news anchor, and prominent motivational speaker. To see this article deleted because a few people dismissed my hard work as an "advertisement" or "resume" is despicable. I highly recommend a reconsideration and a self-evaluation on your parts. Good day. Jkmarold55 (talk) 11:52, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Furthermore, she is an Emmy Award winning journalist. This award isn't given away like hotcakes. If Wikipedia has such a "high standard" for local news anchors, how does this not qualify? Jkmarold55 (talk) 11:54, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Firstly, the regional Emmy programs are not equivalent to the national Emmys. Secondly, even a winner of a national Emmy would not be entitled to keep an article that rested entirely on primary sources with no evidence of reliable source coverage about her in media, or that had an advertorial lean to the writing tone. Either way, the Emmy would be enough for notability if the article were properly sourced, but is not an automatic inclusion freebie that exempts a person from having to be sourced properly. Tone can be fixed, sure, but the sourcing is the make-or-break condition for whether a journalist does or doesn't get an article — the presence of the word "Emmy" in an article does not hand her a special exemption from our reliable sourcing requirements. Bearcat (talk) 12:50, 31 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Yet they establish notability. Capitalize on it. Grow the amount of sources. The article is brand new. Why can' you do some research and build on it? Jkmarold55 (talk) 13:05, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * No, they count as a notability claim, the necessary proviso being if properly sourced. It's the sourcing that establishes the notability or lack thereof, not the claim. Anybody can claim anything about themselves, including things that are actually outright lies — you'd be surprised, for example, how many self-promoting wannabe musicians try to get themselves over WP:NMUSIC by referring to their single as a hit just because it got played twice on their local radio station's Local Musicians Hour, even though it was never actually a "hit" on any notability-conferring record chart. So regardless of what notability is being claimed, the ability to verify, through reliable sources, that they've gotten a reasonably significant degree of media attention for the accomplishment is what determines whether they get a Wikipedia article for it or not.
 * And if you're the one who wants the article to be kept, then you're the one with the responsibility to ensure that you're providing enough of the necessary quality of sourcing to get it kept. Bearcat (talk) 13:12, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * That PDF establishes notability for the Emmy point. I sourced it. How much more specific does it need to be? Jkmarold55 (talk) 13:31, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It needs to be reliable source media coverage about Cravy winning the award, not the awarding organization's own self-published content about itself. If an award's own self-published content about itself were all it took to make an award winner notable, we would have to keep articles about winners of high school poetry contests and local "battle of the bands" competitions — the degree to which media do or don't devote their resources to writing and producing content about the award ceremony and its winners is what determines whether the distinction makes its winners notable or not. Bearcat (talk) 13:39, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Here is policy: "Strongly consider if an alternative deletion process (speedy deletion, or proposed deletion) should be used. Check the deletion policy to see what things are not reasons for deletion. Consider whether you actually want the article to be merged, expanded, or cleaned up rather than deleted, and use the appropriate mechanism instead of AfD. Before nominating a recently created article, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a "cleanup" template, instead of bringing the article to AfD. The pages Wikipedia:Notability (people), Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), Wikipedia:Notability (music), Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, Wikipedia:Notability (web), and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not are frequently cited in deletion discussions. Familiarize yourself with the ones relevant to the article in question. Consider adding a tag such as cleanup, disputed or expert-subject instead; this may be preferable if the article has some useful content. Consider making the page a useful redirect or proposing it be merged rather than deleted. Neither of these actions requires an AfD." This article does not contain elements that warrant immediate deletion rather, it provides more opportunity to expand. The subject is undoubtedly notable, so why delete the page? Why not expand it and fix sources. Instead of boosting your own egos with very personal deletion reasons (especially in Domdeparis' case, by this point) why not help it expand. You aren't the sole opinions on the planet. Help, don't harm. Jkmarold55 (talk)
 * Comment I would suggest that rather than trying to turn it into a personal issue yourself and using sarcasm to get your point over it would be better to supply the necessary sources to prove notability. Of the 7 sources provided 2 are self published 3 are affiliated 1 is a subscription only article so even if it is not to be rejected it is difficult to judge how much of the article actually covers the subject and the last is a list of nominees for one of the 20 regional Emmy awards ceremonies. We are a long way from proving notability so even if the article was cleaned up to remove the resume aspect it doesn't pass GNG even if you consider she is "undoubtedly notable". But as you have said you have no vested interest in the subject so if the consensus is that it doesn't pass it's not really a problem. Nobody is classifying themselves as "as the sole representations of Wikipedia policy" but this is a community where everyone can participate in a discussion and give their opinion even if you think this is "unjust" "inappropriate" and "despicable" and that you highly recommend that we should consider a "self-evaluation" on our parts... that's the way Wikipedia works...and one could say you can like it or learn to live with it but getting on your high horse will not change things.  Domdeparis (talk) 13:10, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The problems are not the issues in this article. There are issues, and I understand that. What astounds me is this "community's" eagerness to make a deletion instead of making suggestions or improvements. Jkmarold55 (talk) 13:29, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Except that apparently every time somebody's actually attempted to make improvements for conformity with our rules, such as toning down some of the promotional bumf, you've simply nixed them and reverted it back to your preferred version. Bearcat (talk) 13:35, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I removed it, first off, and second, I was eager to hear someone else's opinion as well. I can't just go over to some other page and alter it, and then complain when someone reverts it. Jkmarold55 (talk) 15:25, 31 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete a non-notable local TV personality.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:42, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   &#9742;   &#9998;  01:54, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   &#9742;   &#9998;  01:55, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   &#9742;   &#9998;  01:55, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I am fixing citation issues, adding better sources, and fixing the article. Jkmarold55 (talk) 14:01, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I have to bring up a comment a viewer brought up on the talk page of the main article: "I'm a photojournalist in Wisconsin and worked with Jerry Taff, Contessa Brewer, Trenni Kusnierek, Shaun Robinson and a number of other talented folks that now have their own Wikipedia page. I'm not keen to the Wikipedia process, but what is the difference between those folks and Katrina?  She is an amazing talented speaker - here is a link to her giving a speech at the "Women Leading Wisconsin" conference.  https://vimeo.com/209634861 - I can provide additional footage of her speaking presentation if needed to keep her page from being deleted.  Thank you - Videochic79Videochic79 (talk) 21:56, 31 March 2017 (UTC)" — Videochic79 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Video of her giving a speech does nothing to assist notability. A person must be the subject of reliable source coverage in media to qualify for an article, and no claim of notability ever exempts anybody from that requirement. Bearcat (talk) 15:39, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
 * If I did include articles of which she was the subject, would you retract reconsider deletion? Jkmarold55 (talk) 18:34, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It would depend on (a) how many of said articles there were (it takes quite a bit more than just one, frex), (b) how substantive they were (you don't seem all that clear on the significant distinction between "coverage about her" and "coverage of other things which happens to mention her in the process"), and (c) the geographic range that they encompassed (evidence that she's known beyond just one local media market would help reduce how many references would actually have to be shown to satisfy condition A). So, long story short? Maybe, maybe not. Bearcat (talk) 21:23, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I highly recommend you reconsider deletion. I'm willing to work with you to clean up this article. It simply does not deserve it. Jkmarold55 (talk) 14:26, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Fix it, and then maybe this will be reconsidered if it's been fixed enough — but given that you seem to think you've already done enough when you haven't even come close, I see no reason to believe that you actually have any understanding of what "fixed enough" would even mean. And Wikipedia does not owe her an article just because she exists, so you need to stop thinking in terms of what the article does or doesn't "deserve" and start thinking in terms of getting the article to an appropriate quality standard. Bearcat (talk) 21:27, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

This page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rob_Haswell is listed as a stub article and contains a lot less notability, sourcing, and content than Cravy's page, yet it has been up for years. Please explain this. Jkmarold55 (talk) 14:34, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
 * As problematic as that article also is, it does not contain less notability or sourcing than Cravy's page does; it contains the same number of footnotes, and it contains the same base notability claim of having won a regional Emmy. Please also read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS — the fact that there's a bad article about somebody else does not mean this article needs to be kept; it means the other article needs to be cleaned up or deleted too and just hadn't been noticed until you pointed it out. Congratulations on the backfire, though — go look at the article again if you can't guess what just happened. Bearcat (talk) 15:39, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I recommend you check my page again. There are more than 15 different citations. This article is sourced all the way through. Also, why delete that page? It is very well sourced, and he is very qualified? Jkmarold55 (talk) 18:46, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

'''This pages has been thoroughly sourced. Please check back again.''' Jkmarold55 (talk) 18:47, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Please stop using bold when you reply. On wikipedia talk pages this is considered as WP:shouting and should be avoided as it lessens the impact of what you're saying. Thanks. Domdeparis (talk) 07:55, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I forgot to close the bold quotes. Apologies. Jkmarold55 (talk) 13:49, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Neither page is "very well sourced". Legitimate sourcing for a Wikipedia article is media coverage about the subject — it is not the subject's own staff profile on the website of their own employer, it is not content about other things where the subject is the author, it is not content about other things which simply namechecks the subject's existence, it is not press releases from organizations that the subject is affiliated with, and it is not WP:BLOGS — it is media coverage about the subject, nothing less, and none of the citations present in either article actually meet the required standard. Bearcat (talk) 20:34, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
 * No, if you go to the references panel, you will find a whole host of articles written about her from outside of her organization. It is about the subject, so what. Wikipedia policy recommends that because this article is well sourced and establishes some notability, it be cleaned or classified as a stub rather than deleted. Deletion is a last resort activity that is ONLY supposed to be reserved for articles with little to no content, citations, or is PLAINLY and OBVIOUSLY a resume. This article is NOT a resume, does NOT use subjective language and DOES contain enough sourcing to not warrant deletion, but still face cleanup and edits. Jkmarold55 (talk) 22:31, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Deletion is not a "last resort" activity, and is not "reserved for articles with no citations" — articles with garbage citations can be deleted too, which is what we have here. I don't know how I can make this more clear than I already have, but again, of the 16 citations in this article, exactly two of them count for anything toward demonstrating notability under WP:GNG — those being #9, "Katrina Cravy joins WKLH morning crew" in the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel and #11, "Katrina Cravy leaving Fox 6 to launch consulting firm" in the Milwaukee Business Journal, and neither of those count for much because they're blurbs. Exactly none of the other sources count for beans, because every last one of them is either (a) not independent of her, (b) not a reliable source, or (c) not about her. This is not the depth or quality of sourcing that it takes to clear GNG. Bearcat (talk) 02:37, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Not every source in the world is going to satisfy you. And who are you to decide if a source is so garbage it should be deleted? If you actually READ the newer sources I posted, you would see that SOME ARE independent of her! Jkmarold55 (talk) 13:24, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I did not say that none of the sources were independent of her (although some aren't, I didn't say they all weren't). But a source can be independent of her and still not suitable or notability-assisting for other reasons, such as being on a blog instead of a real reliable media outlet, or being on a user-generated content site like YouTube or Vimeo, or being a press release. Reliable sources, for the purposes of getting a Wikipedia article topic over GNG are (a) media coverage about her, (b) media coverage about her, (c) media coverage about her and/or (d) media coverage about her, and nothing else — and for all your attempts to "improve" the sourcing here, you are not showing improved evidence of media coverage about her.
 * Also, you're beginning to cross the WP:BLUDGEON line, by just angrily contradicting everything everybody says in this discussion without showing any evidence that you're actually listening to what you're responding to. I've already explained several times above why the sourcing present here is not assisting her notability, and should not have had to point the same issues out yet again just now. Bearcat (talk) 17:23, 2 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete there is a general consensus at AfD that being a local television personality does not rise to the level of inclusion on Wikipedia (otherwise every popular TV meteorologist would have a Wikipedia page.) They must be notable and receive coverage beyond what would be routine for their profession, generally, and I don't see that here. The coverage is routine and she doesn't seem to warrant her own article at this time. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:34, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:29, 5 April 2017 (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.