Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Theo Caldwell

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. Consensus appears to be that with the modifications, the article meets WP:GNG Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 06:07, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Theo Caldwell

Theo Caldwell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

not notable, previous copy was un-sourced advertorial. probably a vanity page. Former freelancer and TV host on a small Canadian network whose show was cancelled after less than two months. Spoonkymonkey (talk) 21:26, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 22:54, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 22:55, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

• Keep - published author, columnist in major metropolitan newspaper and had a show on a major news channel. Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 00:57, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Theo Caldwell is significant enough to remain although the content obviously needs improvementpidd (talk) 19:03, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

• delete One kid's book, no longer a columnist, and a show that lasted two months on a network that only a few thousand people in Canada watch does not make notability. Spoonkymonkey (talk) 01:20, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
  • note to closing admin opinion above is by same user who opened the AFD, please only count once. Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 10:36, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

• • • That's true. But the lack of interest in the discussion is probably a fair indication of Caldwell's lack of notability. Spoonkymonkey (talk) 02:38, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

• Delete, certainly fails WP:POLITICIAN and his time as a columnist was short. Seems to be a freelancer who can't settle on what he wants to do. PKT(alk) 12:59, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

---

• Keep, just. Yahoo news reported on his leaving Sun News Network as a big thing and his book has been reviewed in a number of, admittedly minor but still reputable, titles, along with discussion of the author. References could do with linking to things other than his own pages. Soupy sautoy (talk) 19:48, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Do you have the link to the story about his departure from the Sun? Was it any more than a one-day "insider" story for the Canadian media? Because, really, the network has almost no viewers and he was only there two months. There's no sign of him surfacing anywhere else. As for the book reviews, can we see links for those, too? So far, all the entry has for sources are his blog and a speech made at a high school (Upper Canada College is a Toronto private high school.) Spoonkymonkey (talk) 22:15, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, should have added it: Caldwell, host of 'The Caldwell Account,' leaves Sun News Network. I'll work on the references a bit, then we can look again.Soupy sautoy (talk) 10:07, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, that's done. Like I say, this is an edge case, but probably worth keeping. Soupy sautoy (talk) 10:30, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

For the record, all the (legitimate) concerns stated above by Spoonkymonkey (talk · contribs) have been addressed. CharlieEchoTango (talk) 04:28, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

All the "coverage" of this "notable" person is one very vague 7-paragraph wire service story that was posted on several web pages.Spoonkymonkey (talk) 11:52, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Concerns now addressed by a variety of additional third-party references. CharlieEchoTango (talk) 04:34, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

• Weak keep. The sources currently used aren't the best, with the exception of the Yahoo piece and the substantial coverage of his book, which also includes a fair amount of commentary on Caldwell (possibly just enough to satisfy WP:SIGCOV, although it's a matter of opinion). However, there's also this from the Toronto Sun, which is directly about him and certainly constitutes significant coverage. If consensus is against keeping this, I would recommend creating an article on the book, which has been covered in detail in at least two reliable sources. Alzarian16 (talk) 13:30, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
• Keep as a successful author and well-known columnist/commentator. CharlieEchoTango (talk) 19:00, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

  Working to improve the article, found a few references of varying quality, etc. CharlieEchoTango (talk) 23:40, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

  Interesting revert by the submitter of this AfD. Removed two well referenced facts from the article (Chair, which is the title as presented by the College in the source given, and the interview with Jeb Bush, available here). Needless to say I undid that unwarranted revert. CharlieEchoTango (talk) 04:02, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

  The CIJR award was also removed in the same edit, again it was well sourced. I notified the user of my undoing of his/her revert on his/her talk page. Still working on the article, once all the references are properly formatted it should be pretty decent. To the best of my judgement, the sources added show, without a doubt in my mind, that Theo Caldwell meets WP:GNG. CharlieEchoTango (talk) 04:31, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

  I will also create an article about the book, Finn the Half-Great, which meets the requirements of Wikipedia:Notability (books). But of course, it is not directly relevant to this AfD as notability is not inherited. CharlieEchoTango (talk) 17:25, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Upper Canada College is a high school. High schools do not have academic "chairs." And interviews with Jeb Bush are noteworthy and do not make a journalist noteworthy. Important, notable journalists have interviewed many, many people, not just one ex-governor of Florida. I am sure many Florida journalists had interviews with Jeb Bush. As for the award, what is it? How is it notable? And the book? Again. so what? There are thousands upon thousands of books published in the English-speaking world every year, and each one does not get a Wikipedia entry unless it has some kind of impact. These inconsequential additions go far to show that there's really nothing notable about Caldwell. Spoonkymonkey (talk) 19:35, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

They may very well be inconsequential additions, but how is the removal of well sourced inconsequential additions legitimate?

Upper Canada College is a very well known school, but that's beside the point, because you are right : it is a high school. And that is utterly irrelevant, because no one claims Caldwell is notable because of the high school. A chair is not some sort of privileged position in academics or elsewhere, a chair is the position of someone who presides over an organization or a meeting, there is no threshold there. The fact is sourced, and while I definitely agree it in itself is not notable, it adds valued information to the article. Removing it is thus pointless.

Jeb Bush is a very well known individual, but that's beside the point, because you are right : interviewing Jeb Bush is common (although not so common with Canadian television hosts). And that is utterly irrelevant, because no one claims Caldwell is notable because he interviewed Jeb Bush. The fact is sourced, and while I definitely agree it in itself is not notable, it adds valued information to the article. Removing it is thus pointless.

Same goes for the award.

Finn the Half-Great passes the threshold set at #1 in the notability guidelines for books. Therefore, and regardless of your claim that a book must have an impact to be on Wikipedia (which is an argument refuted by the guidelines), it is a very relevant addition to Wikipedia and to the article on Theo Caldwell.

Addressing it as a whole, the notable part of Theo Caldwell is shown in the significant coverage in reliable third-party sources, as I have provided. That a chair is not notable is utterly irrelevant. To draw a parallel, the fact that George W. Bush drank alcohol when he was young is not what makes him notable, but it does add to the article and provide the reader with information on the subject.

Inconsequential additions, as you say, have been added to improve the article, as is our duty and privilege as Wikipedia editors. Notability doesn't have anything to do with the way an article looks, looked, what information it includes or not. On the other hand, the "inconsequential" additions show the subject has received a certain amount of coverage in the media and in publications, and help establish its notability.

By the way, if everything included in an article had to be notable, we would have a lot of small articles here. Yes, Theo Caldwell could be a stub. He would still be a notable stub. CharlieEchoTango (talk) 20:25, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I am afraid you are mistaken. "Chair" has real meaning in academia. It is a named professorship, usually sponsored, that is awarded to a professor or intellectual of considerable merit. If, after all the trivial information -- awards from high schools, interviews with retired politicians -- is removed from an entry, and all you have left is a stub, then maybe it is, indeed, a fact that the person is not notable.Spoonkymonkey (talk) 22:00, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

As for the award, a Google search for Golden Magen David and Golden Magen David award turn up no other hits. I seems Caldwell is the only person ever to receive this fantastic prize.Spoonkymonkey (talk) 22:11, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

You may want to try with quotation marks. I agree with you this is a phony award. It has absolutely no weight towards notability, but is still a sourced fact, that also outlines the pro-Israeli stance of Caldwell, which is informative. CharlieEchoTango (talk) 23:02, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

He may not be notable to you, of course, everyone has different views on what is an acceptable threshold of notability. And everyone has different views on what is trivial and inconsequential additions. I for one do not agree that being a National Post columnist is trivial, that being honoured by the Canadian Institute for Jewish Research is trivial, and that hosting a television show with average ratings of 30-33,000 viewers (I don't have a reliable source for that, so I didn't include the ratings in the article, but Caldwell held his own versus other Sun TV day shows) is trivial. I also do not share your view that Sun News Network is a network watched by almost no one (as you stated well above in the discussion), since Ezra Levant and Brian Lilley sometimes have twice as many viewers as CTV News Network for half the households reached. Not bad for a startup. Hosting a show on this network, to me, indeed makes you a notable person, but that's my opinion, which is irrelevant to the guidelines.

So let's see what the guidelines say :

1. The content of the article is irrelevant to the notability of a person. Stub or not, inconsequential additions or not. Per WP:NNC
2. The general notability guideline say that :
   • "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material. - Some sources (not all of them are in the article) are directly about the subject : [1], [2], [3], [4]. Other sources are more than trivial mentions but not directly about the subject : [5], [6], [7], and so forth (Google is a wonderful tool).
   • "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability. - Most sources provided in the article are reliable and have editorial integrity.
   • #3, #4 and #5 similar to the point directly above.
3. The basic criteria of notability for people say that :
   • A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published[3] secondary sources which arereliable, intellectually independent of each other,[4] and independent of the subject.[5] Similar to #1 of WP:GNG.

     • If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability.[6] - Notwithstanding the fact that some coverage is substantial, the combination of sources show that indeed notability has been established.

Now I am aware that these are just guidelines and their interpretation subject to, well, subjectivity. I also believe that the sources I provided above and in the article show without a doubt that Caldwell meets the Wikipedia notability guidelines.

Ultimately it is up to the closing administrator to determine if there is consensus on deletion, therefore I believe we may agree to disagree. :) Cheers - CharlieEchoTango (talk) 22:47, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I think it's time for others to weigh in.Spoonkymonkey (talk) 00:01, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Spoonkymonkey, while I agree that Caldwell is marginal at best you seem to be motivated by some sort of personal antagonism towards the guy given by the amount of effort you're putting into this. Maybe you should just step away from the article and AFD for awhile and let the fates take their course, whatever that may be? Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 13:48, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

An honest observer would see that you have put everything but the kitchen sink into saving this entry, while I have simply pointed out facts, including the fact that high schools do not have academic "chairs", that hos broadcast career was very short, that hos book did not sell well, win awards or do anything else to make it noteworthy. The sole "award" he received seems to be a one-off affair -- no one received it before or since, so it's not particularly noteworthy. I will assume good faith on your part, a courtesy that you have not offered me.Spoonkymonkey (talk) 18:04, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

By "you have put everything but the kitchen sink into saving this entry", who are you referring to and what are you referring to? I agree that User:Vale of Glamorgan's comment was probably out of line. However, the points above (in the response you gave her/him) are all refuted by the various sources I have provided. To answer your "kitchen sink" comment, I have expanded this article for quality purposes and in the optics of providing a variety of reliable third-party sources to refute the argument that Theo Caldwell is not notable. I have not improved the article to create am illusion of notability as you suggest, because like I said before, the notability of the subject is not defined by the contents of an article (WP:NNC). So no, I do not believe an honest observer would arrive to that conclusion if they were evaluating the article in the right optics : looking through the sources provided in the article and in this afd to indeed confirm that the subject meets the general notability guideline.

To address the misconceptions you outline above, his broadcast career was indeed short, so what? Notability is not temporary. His book debuted as the top in the teen category that year and is sold by most major retailers, and again it fits the guidelines for inclusion on this project. As for the "chair", you'll notice it is capitalized : that's because they call it that way. Read "this"., this, watch this, and you will see that while not notable by itself, it is definitely not as trivial as you would like to suggest. UCC is not some kind of trivial high school either, a significant number of high-profile Canadians have been educated there. But again, it is irrelevant : WP:NNC. CharlieEchoTango (talk) 18:56, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I am not interested in a flame war. I contend a brief stint on a Canadian network that has viewership in the 4,000 per hour range and some high school awards does not make someone notable. Being the author of a teen book that got one OK review and one bad one may or may not make him notable. We'll see what the consensus is. That's how wikipedia works. But I do feel ganged up upon by two people who seem quite enamored with this guy. I simply want to see what I think are vanity pages on very unimportant people taken off wikipedia. But if they are not, I'm OK with that. I would still like to see some other comments, pro or con. Spoonkymonkey (talk) 21:38, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm answering again because I want to address, again, the misrepresentation of the facts. Sun News Network does have viewership in the 4,000 per hour range... at 3 AM and 4 AM, when CBC News Network has around 20,000 viewers and CTV News Network roughly a third of that. In that regards the Toronto Star story where you took these numbers was terribly biased. SNN outperforms CTV News Channel on many week nights (per the BBM numbers) while only reaching half the households. So it can go both ways, you can do Quebecor-style propaganda and say SNN outperforms expectations (not true, the channel sucks, and lags well behind in most slots with the exception of primetime), or you can do Mainstream-style propaganda and say SNN is watched by no one, never (not true either, but CTV and CBC have a vested interest in downplaying this new competitor). That you don't like it is something I can live with (I don't particularly like it either), but you shouldn't diminish it with half-truths, because doing that is unfair, confrontational and doesn't promote a spirit of collaboration. I'm not interested in flame wars either, but I will defend anyone or anything against misrepresentation of the facts, especially when it is done with a negative connotation to it (host not notable because network "too small"). If you feel ganged up, this is your prerogative and I'm not one to tell you how to feel or not, but you should not assume that everybody will agree with you when opposing an article on what seems more and more to be WP:IDONTLIKEIT reasons. Oh and by the way, the book has more than one "OK" review and one "bad" review (have you read them, because none are particularly bad). I only included two reviews because citation stacking is pointless. CharlieEchoTango (talk) 22:15, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not in the least bit enamored with the guy. I think he's pretentious, pampered and fatuous and that his views speak to a lifetime of privilege disconnected from the real world but, unfortunately, that's not enough to disqualify someone from having a biography in wikipedia. Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 23:42, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

• Keep. It is borderline, but after reviewing the sources above I think that the subject manages to meet WP:GNG. On a side note, I don't think that the CIJR award and the interview can be considered trivial facts that need to be excluded from the article. Notability doesn't dictate content - frankie (talk) 00:02, 17 July 2011 (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.