Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin Carvell


 * 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. No one endorsed deletion for three weeks  JForget  22:06, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Kevin Carvell

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Note: this is not my AFD, I'm good-faith submitting it for the IP who wanted it.

PROD removed by editor with severe COI. Prod stated "vanity page, relatively unknown subject, not suitable for wikipedia article." 98.248.33.198 (talk) 01:15, 16 October 2009 (UTC) tedder (talk) 17:37, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. COI is not a reason for deletion. Note this article from the Intelligencer Journal of Lancaster, PA (June 30, 2007): http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-9324079.html  -- Eastmain (talk) 20:13, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep As I see it, most of this subject's notability depends on just what is meant by "recognized four times by the Academy of Television Arts & Sciences". The article could use cleanup to remove unverified/unverifiable personal details and other minor issues, but AfD is not cleanup. I suspect tracking down some 3rd party independent sources on the subject could easily get me to remove the 'weak' prefix to my vote. -Verdatum (talk) 20:31, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I can find no source verifying that Mr. Carvell has been "recognized four times by the Academy of Television Arts & Sciences." Also, IMDb, as well as other user-generated databases, is listed as a reference rather than as an "external link". Obviously anyone can edit these sites claiming that Mr. Carvell was a "production assistant" regardless of whether his name appears on the credit roles (doubtful: http://www.imdb.com/board/bd0000042/nest/49580333?d=49580333#49580333). In addition, the editor has referenced the same article twice: references #2 ("More than meets the eye.") and #5 ("Hollywood gets a taste of Lancaster.") They are word for word the same article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.86.109.87 (talk) 21:14, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Fine... we can pull the "recognized four times by the Academy of Television Arts & Sciences.", if you like... til I can find something to back that up. Since he wasn't a producer, but worked closely with them, he was given honorary Emmy certificates... not statuettes, for his contributions to those projects. And going by what some angry movie geeks on a message board with too much time on their hands have to say, is exactly what you would not approve as a reference... so you should also not go by it as a reason for deletion of this article either. Fair is fair. I did wonder why his profile vanished on IMDB there for a while. Now I know. Looks like they got him booted. Yes... he also works for PA-based Blue Ridge Communications (the mentioned cable company). He runs PA-based Flashpoint (where he's consulted on MANY of these projects... but not all... some are independent of Flashpoint) on the side. Big deal. Yes... he's gone by production advisor and consultant... both of which have been lumped under marketing at times... especially early on. Yes... he has a charitable organization... Flashpoint Fund... but it's not a non-profit foundation... it's a clearinghouse for other charities. He uses it to help raise funds and awareness for them. And no... not all of his projects have been hits... there have been several flops. Not that that is important. And he's not a "production assistant", as you say... he's a production advisor. And I fixed those references that you speak of, as well... yesterday. I was also planning to ad some information about his music career in the next week... and other works in the coming weeks, when I have time. Just putting out fires here as quickly as I can.

But if you're dead set on cutting this article, then by all means do so before I put any more time and effort into it, because I don't know what else I can do to please you. I cleaned up some wording to be more neatral. I've scoured the web for sources. I guess some look better than others, in your opinion. I simply don't have anymore fight left in me. Do what you will. Don-flashpoint (talk) 22:49, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Notability? So what basis exists or could reasonably exist for notability from intellectually independent verifiable sources? The one claim seems to have been overstated based on the above exhange even if reliable documentation of lessor claim could be found. If you typed something into google, what kind of hits do you want to see in response? Disguised ads and promotional pieces of neutral fact based references? Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 15:33, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Do any of these online references meet Wikipedia's criteria for reliable secondary sources? We have IMDb, a personal website, and several others that appear to be either trivia or promotional sites.  I doubt any of these maintain a rigorous degree of editorial oversight.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 22:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

There are four news references. Unfortunately, the two Lancaster Intelligencer Journal ones are just segments... as full articles are no longer available to view for free online... but you get the idea. Would you like me to also refernece newspaper articles and TV news stories in the form of a bibliography? Don-flashpoint (talk) 00:37, 24 October 2009 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coffee //  have a cup  //  ark  // 17:31, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

There are now five news references. Don-flashpoint (talk) 22:41, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Neutral - Way too much verbiage above. It needs reliable sources, and it still has a LOT of promotional language that needs to be cut out, assuming the topic is notable. Shadowjams (talk) 09:50, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Would you please cite examples of the "too much verbiage" and the "promotional language" so that I might look at improving it, if possible? As for the "reliable sources", I already have five news sources... it doesn't get more reliable than news sources. And there will be more with additions to this article... sources that relate to these new additions. I'm new at this, so your constructive feedback is helpful.

Additionally... to the powers-that-be... if you're planning to cut this article, I hope that you do it soon. I would rather not continue to add sections to this article and additional sources... only to have it cut after all of that. It would be frustrating enough now as it is, with all of the time I've put into writing and researching online and over the phone already. Don-flashpoint (talk) 20:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Removed four of the references that don't seem to make any difference in the eyes of the admins when showing notability. Don-flashpoint (talk) 00:08, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Added three newspaper sources. Don-flashpoint (talk) 00:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Added one newspaper reference. Don-flashpoint (talk) 00:51, 5 November 2009 (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.