Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ted Kavanau


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 23:47, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Ted Kavanau

 * – ( View AfD View log )

WP:BLP of a television news producer, not properly referenced as passing our notability standards for television producers. As always, people are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and must be shown to either earn important distinctions (notable journalism or television awards, etc.) or have enough reliable source coverage about them in media independent of themselves to pass WP:GNG. But of the four footnotes here, one is a primary source "staff" profile on the self-published website of a publishing company he's directly affiliated with and two are glancing namechecks of his existence in sources that aren't about him (and one of the two namechecks, further, is a personal career reminiscence by a former colleague on the self-published website of their own former employer). There's only one source here that actually starts to get him toward a GNG pass, and one good source isn't enough all by itself. There are also some WP:NPOV issues here, with several loaded value adjectives that praise him and criticize mainstream media in a non-neutral and non-objective way. Bearcat (talk) 15:48, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep — It's minimally sourced because it's a stub. If you don't like that, expand the article. But the sources are mainstream media, referencing articles or books in which Kavanau is the main subject, or a key player. The upshot of their coverage is that without "Mad Dog", CNN might not exist, certainly wouldn't have been the same. — Kaz (talk) 19:36, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * "It's a stub" is not in and of itself justification for minimal sourcing: a person does not get to keep a Wikipedia article of any length if he cannot be shown to clear WP:GNG on substantive coverage about him, which means that if he doesn't have more sources than this then he does not even get to have a stub. (And no, happening to have his name mentioned in coverage of other things is not the same thing as "coverage about him", either.) The only source here that carries any weight at all as notability-supporting source about Ted Kavanau is #1, Literary Hub, and one such source is not enough. Bearcat (talk) 21:28, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:48, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:48, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:48, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   17:53, 22 October 2020 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete per WP:SIGCOV. He appears from time to time on Internet news, being interviewed because yet another of his colleagues or interviewees has died. There's literally eight Google news articles, zero indexed newspaper articles about him, and passing mentions in magazines and books about Atlanta or CNN. Bearian (talk) 20:48, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   15:13, 30 October 2020 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pamzeis (talk) 08:42, 7 November 2020 (UTC) delete a blp needs better sourcing. Spartaz Humbug! 09:40, 15 November 2020 (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.