Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ted Williams (announcer)


 * 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 overwhelming keep. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 01:11, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Ted Williams (announcer)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Another case of "I heard it in the news so let's make an article!" Standard WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E applies; a homeless voiceover artist's pitch goes YouTube viral, and in a tug0-at-the-heartstrings moment, gets a real job offer. This is why we have an essay on recentism, to caution against writing on spur-of-the-moment, news-of-the-day subjects. This person is only notable for a single event, an event for which there is no lasting significance or historical impact. If in a year's time he turns out to be the next Johnny Most for the Cavs, sure, this will be a nice intro to a well-deserved biography. For now it caught a few headlines' attention, then will fade into nothingness. That is the essence of NotNews and 1E. Tarc (talk) 18:40, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Endorse. Snowball clause in favor of keeping. While WP:BLP1E may be applicable (I as well thought to delete the article per this criterion), it is an editorial question whether Williams passes BLP1E. Personally, I now think that the reaction he is getting now may give him notability beyond this event. If this article is in fact deleted, I ask consent to permit future re-creation if more reviews can be actually cited.Tktru (talk) 18:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Um, your usage of "snowball" here is not even remotely applicable to this deletion discussion. No idea what point was trying to be made; if you're trying to short-circuit this discussion prematurely, then there are no grounds for that at all.  As for BLP1E, no, it is not simply an editorial question, it is a policy that I have cited as a basis (one of two) of the argument to delete.  if you disagree, fine, but this is the place to discuss it. Tarc (talk) 19:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. It may have been premature for User:Deliveryreviled to start it very early this morning, but looking at the sources and the general media frenzy about this situation, Ted's story is only really just beginning. There is likely to be a fair bit more in the media over the coming week, and given all the job offers that are apparently coming in for him, it is probably likely that he will soon also be notable for more than just a single viral video. If nothing else comes to fruition within a week, maybe then look and re-assess his notability before taking action. And before you counteract me with WP:CRYSTAL, I'm going to just say WP:IAR. Give it some time.  TheChrisD  Rants • Edits 19:12, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep, this guy is receiving a ton of press. Definitely notable.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:44, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep: Significant coverage meets notability.  Yes BLP1E is an issue, but this AfD can close without prejudice to a future AfD or proposed merger of this content somewhere else if a separate article on Williams is not merited.  No matter what, the original video and its effect is appropriate for inclusion on Wikipedia, as this is already a notable viral video.--Milowent • talkblp-r  20:06, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per the TheChrisD. Less about BLP1E and more about the notability of his viral video and ensuing events. Plot Spoiler (talk) 20:15, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per Millowent. Can always be revisited if the need arises.`-- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 20:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Per William Saturn.  Quite notable. - F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 20:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per TheChrisD; it can always be reassessed later.  EW  i kist Talk 21:12, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete, at least for now. I agree with the first poster in that this is just a case of sensationalist b.s. Just because you're on the news does not mean that you have done anything noteworthy.  What about all the other PA announcers for every other sport and every other arena? Why don't they get their own pages? Because they truly do not do anything notable other than say names from a roster, even if it is in a smooth, hypnotic voice.  This is what is wrong with society. We focus on every little trite piece of tripe, thinking that it is all important.  Why don't we give that "double rainbow" or "they rapin' everybody up in here" guy a page?  Draw the line somewhere.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wearend4 (talk • contribs) 21:30, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, there is an article on Antoine Dodson (to whom you so eloquently referred as "they rapin' everybody up here guy") - a rather comprehensive one, in fact. As to whether or not this particular article should be kept, I have no opinion.216.251.104.127 (talk) 22:00, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Ugh these are some of the worst keep rationales I've seen in recent times. Seriously, "the notability about the viral video and ensuing events" ?  "A notable viral video" ?  Says who or what source?  That this is a person notable for only one event is factually undeniable.  WP:BLP1E does have a threshold that can be overcome for the truly ironclad cases, as given in the example at that link for John Hinckley, Jr..  At the risk of pulling a reverse-WP:OTHERSTUFF, are we really arguing that some (and it is some, not a lot) press has elevated this guy to that level?  Or even beyond some of the more notable deletions of late such as the "bigoted woman", the JetBlue flight attendant, or the large-breasted unemployed woman?  Really?  I realize this is only about one quarter of the first day of what will hopefully be a 7-day discussion, and hopefully more voices will join the fray in due time, but, just...ugh. Tarc (talk) 22:12, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying that it definitely complies with all general requirements, but I don't think there's any harm in letting it stay until after the short-term hype has died down and its notability can be clearly determined.  EW  i kist Talk 22:23, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep, for now If this all turns out to be a flash in the pan and no one remembers the guy's name in a few weeks (as many viral phenomena are wont to do) then the result of a future AfD will be, if not obvious, then at least uncluttered by voices more enamored with Ted's story than with WP policies. Grey Wyvern ⚒ 22:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep He was offered a deal by the Cavaliers and most likely he will accept it. Also significant coverage by press per Saturn. Spongie555 (talk) 22:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep An encyclopedia should contain information about a topic people want to learn more about. I wanted to learn more about this man, I went to his wiki page and found out more.  That's the point of an encyclopedia.  I've never understood this communities desire to strip out interesting and useful content.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.4.17.53 (talk) 22:44, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Plenty of people are famous for one thing. DangApricot (talk)22:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Ted Williams is cool! Crab Pappy (talk) 22:49, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * KEEP I agree entirely with the poster above me. Wikipedia is about the spread of information, and I found the information I was looking. Sure, I could've Googled it, but this was even more quick and efficient, and it always is so long as they've been sufficiently checked for accuracy(which shouldn't take too long for articles like these). Articles like these are great, people want to know about recent events and I believe the wiki principles stand for this. I'm sure there are more "traditional" encyclopedic articles on Wikipedia that get read less. Further more, I personally feel like this discussion underrating this story, whether or not it falls under the category of "recentism". 5,000,000 hits in a day is very remarkable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.141.68.18 (talk) 22:57, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep @Crab Pappy, that's a poor rationale for a keep. Provided he receives coverage beyond today, that there is no reason not to keep. I don't see a benefit for Wikipedia in deleting this article.Smallman12q (talk) 22:59, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep This man is significant enough to warrant having his own Wikipedia page; I have never seen such a story before either. He may even become even more famous in the forseeable future. --Rayboy8 (talk) 23:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - clearly notable per significant mentions in a massive number of mainstream sources across the world. As an encyclopedia we cover what the sources cover, and deem noteworthy what the sources think is worth writing about.  The sources are covering the person as: (1) a viral Internet video, and (2) a person, not just a news event.  Although this is still an emerging story, the sources are covering at least three aspects of his life: the video, his personal history, and the outpouring of support and job offers from around the world.  The whole BLP1E thing is not meant to prevent Wikipedia from covering people notable for only one thing (e.g. a person who holds a world record), or who only did one thing of note in their life (e.g. Lee Harvey Oswald).  It is certainly not meant to avoid covering people who are famous as the actor in a single video or subject of a single documentary.   Rather, it's supposed to avoid covering as a biographical subject someone who just happens to be caught up in the course of a newsworthy event, e.g. a victim of a crime.  Susan Boyle is a similar case of someone who rose from obscurity to worldwide prominence, initially and primarily for a single vocal performance (and a number of sources have commented on that).  Her article was subject to a similar misguided deletion attempt.  Perhaps reviewing that would be helpful.  - Wikidemon (talk) 23:05, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep He has received widespread coverage because of an unusual ability. He is not the average person who got a burst of news coverage because one thing happened. He did not just do a one time stunt have something unusual happened to him one time, although looking like a vagrant while having a professional voice-over delivery might be considered a stunt. There are certainly many thousands of unheralded announcers with as good a voice who did not get the viral video treatment. CBS News compares him to Susan Boyle. This can always be revisited in a few months. Sometimes "1 event" people survive AFD and are generally accepted as notable, like Chesley Sullenberger, Balloon boy or Steve Bartman. I'm definitely not saying "otherstuff exists" as a Keep rationale, just that right after something enters the news cycle we are not always in a position to accurately predict how long the coverage will last. Edison (talk) 00:07, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Per William S. Saturn (Cheers! Want Anything? Chatty?)babylarm 00:25, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.