Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rob Baker (producer)


 * 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  consensus is clear despite impassioned minority arguments. Jclemens (talk) 23:22, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Rob Baker (producer)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

No third party sources provided or found. Fails to meet WP:N Active Banana (talk) 01:18, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom.--Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator. Unable to find third party sources.  Dspradau   → talk   04:51, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Do Not Delete The request to remove this article follows a day-long "edit war" by user Active Banana, whose talk page shows a long history of aggravating other Wikipedia users by aggressive data deletion. This should not be allowed or condoned. He has already been instrumental in removing another valid article for a "Rob Baker (guitarist)" - the lead for the band "Tragically Hip" which is a well known band -- and so many other examples. I've tried to link one article which shows Rob Baker, producer, quoted in the Los Angeles Times and he removed it. I've tried to link a video which supports the "Tonight Show" element in use, as well as the show credits, and he removed it. He continually questions the "notability" of this person despite reasonable evidence which supports this. This amounts to vandalism, abuse, and even harassment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JonnyQ123 (talk • contribs) 05:21, 7 July 2010 (UTC)  — JonnyQ123 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep Hello, I am Rob Baker. I don't quite understand the problem here. Jon knows me pretty well and is a decent source for information himself, but if the references are in question then by all means, Google my name connected to the John Kerwin Show, or the Vision Awards, or look at my IMDb... and there are many other references here and about. Many newspapers are on the John Kerwin Show official page and several mention my name. I don't claim to have done great things, but the few things which are mentioned on my entry here I am proud of. I find it a bit offensive to have them maligned by someone whose only qualifications are that he has a Wikipedia account, and whose identification is a photograph of a pile of bananas. There is nothing contentious or controversial within my entry that should inspire or provoke such aggressive actions to remove it, and surely one can connect the dots via the available information and see that nothing there is overtly salesmanlike or boastful. It is a simple statement of a few facts. I'd love to mention a few other things which could support the cause of blindness, but most credits and references for those projects shine the light on the blind founder of the organization, Helen Harris, which is fine. I worked there for six years and helped deliver aid to blind people and worked with pretty much all the film studios to create described films and TV programs for the blind to enjoy... but perhaps this is not notable. I'm also credited on motion pictures with well known talent involved.  The talk show I've produced for four years airs all throughout Los Angeles on LA's official cable channel LA36 to all the millions of LA's cable households on five different systems, which is verifiable, and has over 2 million views on YouTube as well, which is verifiable. If this does not count toward notability, then there are scads of other YouTube people which should then be removed here, too. It's much easier to malign something than to do the work of the research, even just watching the shows or looking at the numbers and adding them on a calculator.  It feels silly to come here and support my own page, but I really have to wonder... just what is the problem here?  Is this someone's idea of a power play of some sort?  Anyway, if further information is needed, I can perhaps upload photos of myself holding my awards or the mayor's commendation, or working on set with famous people... but it just seems plain silly.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raaawb (talk • contribs) 08:11, 7 July 2010 (UTC)  — Raaawb (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Hi Rob. Nobody doubts you have done great things, but as long as they are not so great that a number of people independent of you write about you (not just mention your name but maybe interview you about your achievements) we will not keep an article about you. Once this is achieved, we will have to check whether there is verifiable proof for every claim that is made about you. And then, once it is verified, we will check it against our inclusion threshold. (You might want to follow the blue links that lead to the full-text policies.) We do not count YouTube video hits towards this, and the community is still discussing about the value of IMDb entries. --Pgallert (talk) 09:51, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Rob will not likely see your response. But the main point at hand, first of all, is whether the article ought to be deleted. The allegation regards "notability." The main substance of the article maintains that 1) Rob is the producer of this talk show; 2) Rob is a production executive credited on some motion pictures, and 3) Rob worked with the charity behind "The Vision Awards." First, the existence of the talk show is indisputable, and ample evidence exists to support that Rob has been its producer. Articles are posted on the "news" section of the show's website, notably the L.A. Times article and the L.A. Wave article and perhaps others, which name Rob within the text. There are dozens of episodes posted online which show his name in the credits roll at the end -- and likely many other sources exist to support this. If the show itself warrants an article - then certainly its producer does.  It can also be easily verified that the show has featured notable guests including David Carradine, Steve Wozniak, Eric Roberts, Sean Young, Karen Black and so many others -- most of whom have their own Wikipedia entry. Notable, or not?
 * IMDb may be "being discussed" as a proper source, however bear in mind that their criteria is also staunchly rigid and works much like Wikipedia. Maybe even more rigid. The site supports the existence of the John Kerwin Show, the Vision Awards, and the Infinity Media films Rob is credited under. Many other credible sites have also relied upon that information and have carried it forward. If IMDb is NOT a proper source for Wikipedia -- then it isn't. "Being discussed" is not enough of a reason to dismiss it.
 * Then all you're left with is little bits and pieces, which have not been raised at issue. Articles about the Kerwin Show include the mention of the "Tonight Show" instance. The show's web site names the awards it has received, and it's not a far stretch to imagine that the show's producer may count those as his (he has physical awards with his name on them!). You can even look at his Facebook page at facebook.com/raaawb and see some photos from the show which include him in them. But, "notability" is the primary issue, and if you dismiss this article due to "not enough evidence" then someone isn't looking very hard at all.
 * The editor deleted links just minutes after they were posted, declaring "no mention of him on the site" -- but it would take more than mere minutes to locate those articles and read through them. Now come on -- "lack of evidence" should not be declared by someone who hasn't even bothered to check! My contention is that this editor is -- and I'm coining a new word for this -- an editerrorist on this site. He may even hold a grudge against people named Rob Baker -- as you can see, here he has taken a perfectly nice, informative article and "redirected" it -- essentially deleting it in its entirety -- about the Tragically Hip lead guitarist named Rob Baker: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rob_Baker_%28guitarist%29&diff=342626470&oldid=342532915 Look now -- you'll see the article isn't live any more. The archive even mentions "liner notes" -- but I suppose an actual physical item means nothing if it's not online!
 * The existence of this deletion item is ONLY due to the fact that this person, Active Banana, saw fit to conduct himself as judge and jury -- as he has clearly done in countless other cases -- to the great detriment of this site. Pages and pages of edits, mostly deletions -- eliminating the hard, earnest work of so many people trying to support the heart and soul of this site's intent. Unfortunately, there seems to be little one can do to prevent this.  This person set about, with vigor, to destroy this humble little entry on Wikipedia. I first tried to spruce up the article, but he kept coming back. If you can make "inline citations" from the sources I've mentioned, then great!  How do you link to a motion picture or television credits roll? If it is his goal to help and "make better," then he should be working toward that end, not pinching off every little thing he sees that doesn't "comply."  But I submit that this doesn't really need any further citations. It's a neat, clean article; it doesn't make any outrageous claims, and nothing is there which ought to offend anyone -- and best of all, its subject should, by all accounts, be considered "notable."  This notice is the punitive action taken by that editor after engaging in an edit war all day long, and this needs to be recognized.  He is vandalizing this, and many other articles and making Wikipedia a poorer place for his actions. What has he actually added to the site?  HIS work is what I would not call "notable."  Nor nobly intended.  He should not be allowed to continue his editerrorism. JonnyQ123 (talk) 13:15, 7 July 2010 (UTC) Striking second vote by JonnyQ123 --Pgallert (talk) 14:46, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * From your comment "Rob will not likely see your response." it appears that you may have a personal connection with the subject of the article. I would like to point out WP:COI, our conflict of interest policy. As well as WP:NPA no personal attacks. Active Banana (talk) 13:53, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * NOTE JonnyQ123 has also !voted previously above. Active Banana (talk) 14:35, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I crossed out the duplicate vote. --Pgallert (talk) 14:46, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * On this site we discuss about articles, not about editors. The guitarist, btw, had a completely unsourced article which is not allowed. --Pgallert (talk) 14:41, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete for failing to assert notability. Also, the above targeting of the nominator by SPAs does not fill me full of joy...  one brave  monkey  14:13, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete As a producer, the notability guideline that probably fits best is WP:CREATIVE. I cannot see in which way he would pass that guideline. In its current shape the article cannot stay, and that a lot of other articles are in the same sorry state is no excuse -- they will be improved, or they will go. Rob Baker (producer) has two issues: Notability and Verifiability. For the former, may I quote from the Telly Award wp entry: "The Telly Awards web site lists thousands of winners annually." and "Winners are charged US$150 for their statue." I do not know about this award but this wording does not suggest to me that winning this award establishes lasting historic significance. For the latter issue, even for this (historically) small achievement there is no proof. Actually, there is no proof at all except the IMDb entry: the other two are a web site that does not mention the name Baker, and his MySpace profile. Had I come across this entry I would have nominated it on the spot, just like the OP did. --Pgallert (talk) 14:41, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak delete per nom, the article promotes a near-notability, but IMDB, respectfully, does not seem to suggest the subject is notable enough for Wikipedia. S.G.(GH) ping! 14:47, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete: Notability not even asserted.Toddst1 (talk) 15:00, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak delete -- as above, not sure notability is even asserted, never mind established. No 3rd-party sourcing (except IMDB, which is of questionable value). --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:14, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Does not meet threshold of WP:N. — raeky ( talk 15:56, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - per Raeky above. -  NeutralHomer •  Talk  • 16:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I wrote an admittedly long response to this, below, which has been collapsed but which primarily discusses the point of "notability." Here I wish to just point out the third-party reference parts: Is IMDb used regularly here as a source? Is being named, along with occupation established, in an L.A. Times front page article credible as a source? Is an actual screen roll of credits credible as a source? If so, then here are three decent third-party sources. If you are interested in this subject, then please read below. Thank you. JonnyQ123 (talk) 23:33, 7 July 2010 (UTC) — JonnyQ123 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * First, what seems to predominate here is a sense of interest in "smiting the buzzing bee" rather than a fully fair interest in the question at hand, which is whether this article reflects "notability" or not. I mention again that the existence of this AfD is clearly "punitive" in nature, if you were to review the edit history. I have tried to protect this article from being vandalized. I would hope that an editor's main intent would be to help and improve -- yet this editor kept tearing down, agressively fighting to assert his "right to do so," and finally marked it for deletion when he found opposition -- not because he originally thought it worthy of deletion. This seems far from the intent of this site. An editor who becomes an "auditor," seeking out the wrong and documenting it without really helping it -- would seem quite contrary to the site's intent. At no point did I notice anything "helpful" from this editor; only a destructive intent, further displayed by his aggressive behavior toward knocking this article down until finally marking it for deletion.  People keep wanting to cite "rules," however if you're a veteran of the site, then you know the site's intent in that regard as well. ("Ignore the rules.") Beyond that, all that binds any of us here is a sense of what is fair.

So: It would seem that perhaps a sort of math might do some good here. Add up ideas in a column. See if a consensus of agreement can be reached.

The primary item within the article is "The John Kerwin Show," which has existed since 2001 and has featured many well-known celebrity guests. First: Is the show itself notable? Yes/No

Bearing in mind that a producer and writer of a TV show is of primary value to that show -- as per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_producer - "The primary role of a television producer is to control all aspects of production, ranging from show idea development and cast hiring to shoot supervision and fact-checking. It is often the producer who is responsible for the show's overall quality and survivability," then in most normal circumstances, wouldn't a show's notability tend to also confer notability upon its producer? Yes/No

Then: Would a key credit on a well-recognized motion picture tend to offer a hint toward notability? Yes/No

Would a key credit on a well-recognized celebrity award show tend to offer a hint toward notability? Yes/No

Then: Is IMDb a relied-upon source for Wikipedia articles? Nevermind opinions about that -- is it actually and regularly used as a third-party source of information? Yes/No

Is being quoted by name and occupation in a front-page article in the Los Angeles Times reliable information as a third-party source? Yes/No

Is having one's name clearly displayed in the credit roll of a TV show or film a credible third-party source? Yes/No

(For these last three, if you answered "yes" -- then there's your third-party verification, three different ways!)

Tally up your "Yes" answers here. These would establish the weight of credibility toward "notability."

Then: Does the article offer any outlandish, incredible, or harmful claims? Yes/No

Does the article seem unclear or badly written? Yes/No Does the article fail to offer useful, relevant information for someone who is looking for it? Yes/No

Do you believe someone might be in any way disadvantaged by the existence of this article? Yes/No

Does the article seem overly serving of an agenda (setting aside the thought that most article subjects would like their entries to be "kind") beyond offering relevant information? Yes/No

Tally up your "No" answers here. If you answered "No" to most or all of these, then you should have no conscientious objections to its existence in principle.

Then: If you knew you could improve this article -- would you? Knowing that there indeed exists third-party sources to establish its credibility, but you would like to see them properly referenced here -- how might you do that? Wikipedia has a whole article about the viability of "offline sources," mainly stating that they should not be ignored. So, how do you reference a video containing relevant information if such links are frowned upon? How would you properly reference that L.A. Times article which is also third-party verification? How might you reference the content of a video which plays out other information mentioned in the article? (In specific, the Mayor's commendation or the "Tonight Show" event.) These videos actually DO exist online. In fact, dozens of episodes of The John Kerwin Show exist online via YouTube and other sites where the credit roll is clear. If you don't actually offer a link to the source, would you help the article succeed by knowing just how to footnote that information? (I will admit, I am not versed on footnoting here.)

If you tallied mostly "Yes" answers in the first group and "No" answers it the second group, then you should have a fair basis for a decision. Do you think I left any pertinent questions unasked? What are they? If you agree that the Kerwin show is notable, that the Vision Awards is notable, that the films mentioned in the article are notable -- and then that the person's role played within them was notable -- you should have a fair answer. At least, look at the overall weight of your answers to decide. Then answer the questions:

Should you punish the article because you don't like the behavior of its editor?

Would the community be better served if the article were to be deleted?

If you find any merit in the article's existence, knowing what you do now after studying this matter, would you be willing to help improve its faults so that it needs no further "notices" placed upon it?

There are other references, too. Rob has a Facebook page with photographs from the talk show, and a LinkedIn account containing a work history and references from people he worked with -- and quite possibly other useful web resources which might help this article.

Do you wish to destroy, or do you wish to build?

I will then apologize for any of my own behavior here which may have seemed disruptive or angry, and hope you will understand my interest in this matter. I felt something I had helped create was being attacked, and then I felt personally attacked. If it is the lot of editors to help the site find friendly, constructive and encouraging help -- then I hope you will display that in your thoughtful response to this.

Thank you for listening. JonnyQ123 (talk) 23:12, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll have a crack, IMDB isn't considered a reliable source other then general basic information or filmography information, it's not used to established notability since the threshold to get listed on IMDB is virtually so low almost anyone can get listed there and theres virtually no oversight for accuracy of information. As for a LA Times article, (link please?), a passing mention in an article generally wouldn't be considered evidence for notability, the guideline, or threshold you need to meet is listed here (WP:CREATIVE), and so far we're not seeing anything that comes close to those guidelines. — raeky ( talk 23:39, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Copy of the LA Times (probably illegally hosted) The "front page story" is an article about a change in laws about Public Access TV and Baker's coverage by/contribution to the article: As a producer of a local TV show he is quoted in two sentences, stating 1) There was no pre-notification of the change in laws, 2) He predicts that the change is the end of public access. (And there is a picture of the show that he is producing, but he is not identified in the image)Active Banana (talk) 00:28, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That's really helpful, but the wikipedia article still fails WP:BIO/WP:CREATIVE as the Times article is in no way is the article about him.  Toddst1 (talk) 00:41, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe I'm keeping the issues straight here -- what it seems to boil down to is, "There's not enough proof, and (even if there is proof), he's not notable!" The mention of the Times article was to address the third-party issue. Any notability it might confer would be a bonus.  IMDb listing and the videos of the shows themselves, likewise. Once you've established this, then it comes down to notability.

Wikipedia invites everyone here to just dig right in and start writing an article! It offers the "five pillars" and then further says, "ignore the rules" -- this is what you see when you arrive here. Everything else then, is just "guidelines." Seems silly for an article posted on Wikipedia, then, to be the be-and-end-all determinor of whether a person is "notable." Only common sense will guide that answer. Also seems silly to adopt a mindset that "the rules must be enforced strictly." Obviously everyone here knows that a large number of people listed here won't meet that set of guidelines -- which then creates another set of criteria to determine: "Is it reasonable enough to exist here?" You tell me -- what is the common sense answer to "is the producer of a notable 9-year-old TV show notable himself?" JonnyQ123 (talk) 04:17, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The 5 pillars are not the end-all-be-all for the rules, and WP:IAR does not give you free license to put everything under the sun on Wikipedia. We have more guidelines, specifically, WP:NOT, WP:V, WP:N, these are all CORE guidelines to how we operate here. Everyone plays under these rules, and we're not ganging up and twisting the rules to pick on you. — raeky ( talk 04:31, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry for one more thought then -- one of the categories he's listed within is "YouTube Producers" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:YouTube_video_producers under which there are currently 143 listings. Should this category then not even exist? Or is he also notable within that category? The show is partner-channeled on YouTube, has millions of views, and likely most "YouTube personalities" could be called into question under the WP:NOT as well. But rather than squash those entries, consider whether this constitutes a different type of notability. Again, asking for a common sense rather than "rule-based" consideration here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JonnyQ123 (talk • contribs) 04:39, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not even going to begin to pretend that your page is the only one currently in violation of WP:N guidelines, theres probably thousands, tens of thousands, it's a daunting task. But because other crap exists is not a defense for an AFD. — raeky ( talk 04:43, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. Forgetting all the drama, no/few reliable sources appear to exist, few google hits. Clear deletion candidate even if conflict of interest was not present. Christopher Connor (talk) 19:10, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Attempting to summarize as concisely as possible. The article does reasonably fall within Wikipedia's guidelines -- and this is not just opinion as acceptable evidence and reasoning exists to substantiate this.

Two issues have been brought here -- first, verification, and second, notability. As has been pointed out earlier, the evidence offered toward verification does not seem to be in further dispute, but in summary: Articles exist at http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jan/05/entertainment/et-publicaccess5 as well as http://www.thejohnkerwinshow.com/general_webdocs/WaveArticle.jpg which name Rob Baker as the producer of the John Kerwin Show. His IMDb page at http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0048869/ details his credits on that show as producer and writer beginning in 2005. And, any number of complete episodes of the show are posted at http://www.youtube.com/johnkerwin2000 which include the credits roll at the end. Here is a specific episode link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9u5c20mPQ0 -- this is the Ed Asner/Kevin Sorbo/Keaton Simons episode from May, 2008 (including the monologue with contributions from former Tonight Show writers from each host). Rob's name in the credits appears at 27:20. You can also simply Google search Rob's name along with the Kerwin show and find many results, but these mentioned here should sufficiently establish "verification."

Then, as to "notability": The guidelines for this at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notability_in_Wikipedia -- the #3 item under "creative professionals" states as follows: "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." The article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_producer more fully details the role of a TV producer. A notable TV show is "a significant or well-known work." And the producer/writer of a TV show is a primary creator of that content. And further, "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" is well fulfilled by at least a dozen published articles about the show, including Emmy Magazine, Broadcasting & Cable Magazine, and the Los Angeles Times, among many others. (Of course the articles don't need to be referenced for Rob Baker's entry, but as regards the notability of the works in which he is a creator, then these sources are available, and are referenced on the talk show's site at http://www.thejohnkerwinshow.com/news.html and can also be found elsewhere via Google search.) And certainly many articles are also available about "The Vision Awards" and about the films in which Rob has received credits.

This establishes the propriety of this article on this site to the letter of Wikipedia's guidelines -- despite anyone's "feeling or impression" that the subject is not notable "enough" to their liking. If fulfilling the rules is the requirement you wish to fulfill aside from any other leeway it could be afforded -- it does.

Further, the article keeps being tagged as lacking "inline citations." The citations, as mentioned on the site, are needed mainly "for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations." So perhaps the article COULD include inline citations -- but there seems to be nothing outwardly and distinctly requiring of them. Rather than marring the article with a large notice up at the top, it certainly seems within reason to label it a "stub" instead if more information is desired, which notation is usually placed at the bottom. Otherwise, if any experienced editor here knows a good way to reference as an inline citation the above-noted items properly within the article -- it would be nice if you would. Thank you. JonnyQ123 (talk) 06:20, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You are mistaken. The guidelines for notability that apply to this article are WP:N and WP:BIO, specifically, WP:Creative. Assuming you are referring to WP:Creative, #3, you are implying that this person's work has been the subject of of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.  The TV show that this guy worked on has not been the subject of any independent book or feature length film.  His collective body of work has not been the subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.    We get who this guy is and he blatantly, and unanimously (except for WP:SPA, WP:COI editors) fails that criteria. Please stop now. Toddst1 (talk) 19:51, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Go look up the word "or" and note the italicized items. The rule indicates "the subject of a book OR feature length film OR of multiple independent periodical articles OR reviews." Any ONE of those things MEETS THE GUIDELINE.  The notability of the work is another discussion entirely, but given that it is notable and has been the subject of numerous articles, then one of its main content creators falls right into this category.  And it refers to the WORK being the subject of articles -- not the creator, who must only be verifiable as such, as shown above.  And you are being notably condescending and snippy with your attitude here, which is also notably AGAINST the guidelines for this site, especially for an admin, and which I feel justified in addressing.  Otherwise I am keeping this directly on point and there is no reason I shouldn't be able to present a case within the site's guidelines.  If this article is deleted, it will be because the voters essentially don't "like" it here -- not because they are actually enforcing the guideline. JonnyQ123 (talk) 01:34, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * To establish notability for Rob Baker there needs to be articles about Rob Baker, not about The John Kerwin Show or John Kerwin or any of his other works, about him. We've not seen anything to qualify for that. — raeky ( talk 02:14, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * But it doesn't say that there. It says the WORK must be the subject of articles.  If you co-wrote a bestselling book and the book was covered in articles, but no one did a profile on YOU specifically -- that would be an example here.  Many TV show producers DON'T have articles written about them.  The only requirement here is that the identity of the person as a creator be affirmed. JonnyQ123 (talk) 02:26, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * To add, theres probably enough (barely I suspect) WP:N for the show, and probably enough for John Kerwin (both have articles, but are badly in need of sourcing and work), but there just isn't enough for the producer of that show, as has been iterated on many many times here. — raeky ( talk 20:59, 10 July 2010 (UTC)


 * A well-reasoned, well-researched argument was presented in the collapsed section above which proves the article falls within Wikipedia's guidelines. Hiding the argument seems to be an unfair use of administrator action which does not help guide objective reasoning here. So I will try to be succinct:

Verification has been established through several credible sources. Notability is established as per WP:Creative under creative professionals, item #3. Within that section, the sentence will read, when you remove the inapplicable "or" items: "The person has played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work, that has been the subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." That is the sentence which supports notability, or which must be disputed in order to establish lack of notability. See above collapsed section for expanded discussion about this.

Again, this states that the articles must be written about the work, not the person. Likely not many can readily name the producers of other late night talk show hosts like Jay Leno, Conan O'Brien, etc., and you might not expect there to necessarily be articles written about them as popular media tends to favor writing about celebrities and shows rather than the creative people behind them. This may be why the notability guideline is written just the way it is, as otherwise most TV producers/writers/creatives would "fail" here due to the lack of having had some journalist write about them. JonnyQ123 (talk) 21:17, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete nothing provided in this article remotely satisfies notability requirements, and the associated articles dont support notability either. normally, i will do a google search to see if an article can be saved. however, if the subject of the article, and a passionate supporter of the article, have not been able to add any more information than this, then how could i find anything? I sincerely hope something is added, as i dont like to delete articles on people who are close to notability (obviously, as a producer, he could at any time find himself in the limelight, and i sincerely hope he does, assuming he isnt a malevolent prick :){i know that sounds mean, but im sure hes been called worse in lalaland, and im sure he can take it, and im not even calling him that}), but the article is what it is, despite all the arguments in support of it. sources, people. and remember, a print source that can be verified is good too, though i suspect most recent reliable print sources are also found online. oh, and no prejudice against recreation if and when notability can be shown. see, im not a malevolent prick either:) Further research: since this sometimes happens, i checked the edit history of the article for previously entered material that may have been deleted that could show notability. all the prior references that are no longer here were, upon investigation, not helpful in establishing notability. For the record, i see a series of reasonable deletions of unusable external links, essentially noncontroversial edits under WP policy guidelines. I really hope that the subject can see this, and that this afd process doesnt appear to reflect any sort of bias towards or against the subject. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:12, 12 July 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.