Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al Pawlowski

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 redirect to List of Cleveland Indians broadcasters.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:59, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Al Pawlowski[edit]

Al Pawlowski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable. Fails WP:BIO. Local sports broadcaster; serves as occasional back up for Cleveland Indians in-game coverage. Little or no coverage from reliable third-party sources. Could not find a single secondary source online or in print to demonstrate notability. Even if some are found, there is clearly a lack of "significant" coverage. Levdr1lostpassword / talk 01:34, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral - I'm sure if one looked deep enough, they'd find some things, but I'm on the fence about whether or not it'd be worth it. I know it sounds wishy-washy, but an arguement could be made either way. (talk) Vjmlhds 02:11, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you feel there is an argument to keep this article -- based on notability guidelines -- then by all means share it. Levdr1lostpassword / talk 05:06, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As he sits right now, Pawlowski is relatively small potatoes, but I hesitate to remove the article due to the fact that he may one day become a big deal. Who knows, he may become the main Tribe announcer down the road. If the article didn't exist, for what he's done right now, it wouldn't be worth creating. But if we delete the article, then he winds up becoming bigger and better...that's the thing with articles about people, events could cause things to change, and fast. (long story short - it's easier to keep an existing article and add to it than start from scratch) Gun to my head, I'd say very tepidly keep, but I wouldn't lose any sleep over a deletion. talk) Vjmlhds 11:40, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's not an argument based on notability guidelines (WP:N). The question is whether or not the subject is sufficiently notable for an article *now*. If you can demonstrate that Pawlowski has significant coverage online, in print, or elsewhere, and that coverage is independent of Pawlowski himself, then you may have an argument (WP:SIGCOV). Otherwise it's just your own personal opinion, separate from deletion policy. Levdr1lostpassword / talk 19:24, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here's what I did so can never forget his information: I dragged the biography and put into stickies, the application on my Mac computer. Ashbeckjonathan 23:28, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not the one who created Al Pawlowski. I created Jeff Phelps. I don't see any issues why this article should be deleted. Ashbeckjonathan 16:42, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
The article does not cite a single reliable source (aside from two nonspecific external links-- Indians.com, SportsTimeOhio.com). After performing my own Google news search, I could not find a single story in which Pawlowski was the subject. All online coverage is limited to passing references to his role as a local sports broadcaster, lately as a back up for the Cleveland Indians on TV. Per WP:SIGCOV, the topic must have received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". This article fails that test. Levdr1lostpassword / talk 19:24, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Al Pawlowski is the studio host and a part time play-by-play for the Cleveland Indians telecasts and is the radio voice of the Cleveland State Vikings men's basketball team and hosts a couple Cleveland Indian shows as well as calling high school football and basketball for SportsTime Ohio. Ashbeckjonathan 20:21, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Assuming that's all true, none of it addresses the lack of coverage on the subject. Surely if Pawlowski were sufficient notable, there would be content online or in print on the subject himself. I can find nothing other than passing references to his role as a pregame/postgame announcer for the Indians. Levdr1lostpassword / talk 20:32, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well to me, Al Pawlowski calls select games for the Indians to allow Matt Underwood, the lead voice of the Cleveland Indians telecasts, to have some time off. I don't see why this article is proposed for deletion. Ashbeckjonathan 23:26, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Consensus based on deletion policy determines whether or not to keep an article, not your own personal view. The subject lacks significant coverage from reliable sources independent of the subject. You may want to review WP:BASIC. Levdr1lostpassword / talk 00:10, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spanneraol (talk) 20:11, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would have no problem with this. Levdr1lostpassword / talk 20:19, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought, no, I'm not okay w/ a redirect. Subject's lack of coverage (and, therefore, failure to meet general notability guidelines), indicates little or no likelihood that readers will search for subject Levdr1lostpassword / talk 01:51, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support redirect. Article has received over 300 views/month so far this year. If you don't think Wikipedia users/editors are interested in people not deemed notable by the GNG, then ... Welcome to Wikipedia! Woodshed (talk) 10:07, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Page view statistics aren't relevant in the context of notability (or much else, really). The stat tool's creator even cautions: "I wouldn't base any important decisions on these stats." That said, 300 views a month is hardly noteworthy. The point here is that the article, along with its edit history, should be deleted. A redirect can always be created at some later date. Fully support Dirtlawyer1's position below. Levdr1lostpassword / talk 16:57, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We weren't talking about notability — I think the majority agrees that he's not notable (also the subject of Dirtlawyer1's position). Redirects are cheap, and there's no reason not to redirect users to an existing, appropriate page. You haven't supported your assertion that there's "little or no likelihood that readers will search for subject". Approx. 300 readers/month are interested in the subject. Woodshed (talk) 14:12, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, yes, we are talking about notability. If we're all agreed that there is no justification for the article itself, why should we leave the page history intact? And I don't think the essay you cited (not policy) is relevant here. I'm not opposed to a redirect -- I'm opposed to a redirect over deletion. I think a suitable compromise would be creating a redirect after the page has been deleted. As for the views, I think you may be confusing spillover from the article's handful of incoming links, like Cleveland Indians (37,000+ views/mo.), with readers who are actually searching for the subject. Levdr1lostpassword / talk 14:59, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point me to the relevant guideline on when we should delete, then re-create page as redirect vs. something like WP:BLAR? I'm unsure on this rationale. At WP:R#CRD, I'm seeing "Therefore consider the deletion only of either really harmful redirects or of very recent ones." I don't see that any of the reasons listed there under "reasons for deleting" apply here. (I'm also seeing WP:ATD-R, which is in the context of WP:NOT.)
I'm not sure you understand my position. I propose deleting this article. Period. Perhaps I shouldn't have used the word "compromise" as that implies I somehow favor delete-then-rediect... I don't. I was merely pointing out that creating a redirect after deletion is an option. I'm also not sure why you're linking to WP:R#CRD as this has nothing to do with deleting a redirect. Levdr1lostpassword / talk 16:18, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake on R#CRD. It was listed under WP:BLAR as a "see also". The rationale seemed relevant to the point. Woodshed (talk) 16:43, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To answer the question you posed, it would be because the page history may assist a user creating this article in the future, if the subject becomes notable. To re-pose the question back to you, why shouldn't we leave the page history intact? What's the harm? Woodshed (talk) 15:20, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone may become notable in the future, but that in itself is not reason enough to keep the edit history intact (I'm sure most, if not all AFD's resulting in "delete" could be redirected to some other page-- that doesn't mean they should be). A better question to ask is, how likely is the subject to become notable in the future? In the case of Pawlowski, and based on all available information on him up to this point, not-very to not-at-all. He's a local broadcaster, a back-up really, and much of his work is linked to SportsTime Ohio, a cable property the Indians recently sold to Fox Sports. The station is likely to undergo major changes moving forward, if not an outright merge with Fox Sports Ohio, meaning Pawlowski may soon be out of a job. He isn't notable now, and I only see his potential notability going down from here. Levdr1lostpassword / talk 16:18, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, you never did address my point on views. Just as Pawlowski is only really notable for his connection to the Indians through their former cable TV property, his page views are probably largely due to incoming traffic from the Cleveland Indians article. Levdr1lostpassword / talk 16:24, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." Thanks for the discussion on this. I think we've both hashed it enough. If there are relevant guidelines to cite, I'm sure others will come up with them. Woodshed (talk) 16:37, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, if only this back-and-forth were thoroughly "hashed". It probably would've been over and done with, that is if you hadn't posted a quote from my own userpage, but now you've decided to needlessly stir things up and potentially threaten the civility of what I thought was a civil exchange. So now I have to ask the question: why use a quote from my user page? What point are you trying to make? Are you trying to say that no one knows what will happen w/ Pawlowski in the future, and so there's not point in speculating? That might be true if we were the ones speculating, but I've linked to existing online speculation regarding the subject's primary employer, STO. Where's your "evidence", Woodshed? Yes, you've linked to various policies (and an essay), but much of that seems irrelevant, IMHO (e.g., deleting redirects). And I'm still waiting for your response on my point on page views. Levdr1lostpassword / talk 17:05, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You can also feel free to address the substance of my earlier post ("... how likely is the subject to become notable?", etc.), since you also conveniently ignored those other points, too. Levdr1lostpassword / talk 17:08, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fine by me too. And for the record, as he sits right now (which for this discussion is all that matters), he isn't notable enough for his own article. (talk) Vjmlhds 20:41, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'd agree he's not notable and Spanneraol's solution seems the most useful/reasonable, but one reason supporting a keep might be that he has "won three Emmy awards", per WP:BIO - "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times." Pawlowski has likely won a local Emmy, like the Lower Great Lakes Chapter of the NATAS, which Pawlowski appears to have won as part of a team.[1]
As an aside, it seems likely to me that many sports broadcasters with WP articles probably fail a rigorous application of the notability guidelines. (Are there or should there be "automatic" notability thresholds for broadcasters — e.g., calling pro sports or Div. I major college sports?) Woodshed (talk) 00:31, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Woodshed. Yes, the subject appears to have won one or more Local Emmy Awards, but these awards sound more "well-known and significant" (per WP:ANYBIO) than they are, merely b/c they have "Emmy" in the name. And as you have pointed out, the 2010 award appears to be for a group effort, not for the subject himself. Levdr1lostpassword / talk 00:44, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • How is this article not notable? Ashbeckjonathan 23:32, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Your question has already been addressed, both here and on my talk page at User talk:Levdr1lostpassword#Al Pawlowski. Levdr1lostpassword / talk 00:10, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. Delete. The subject fails the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG: there is insufficient in-depth coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources to establish the subject is notable. Redirect to list of identified list of Cleveland Indians broadcasters. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:06, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fully support the above position. Levdr1lostpassword / talk 16:57, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't the proper place for you to be listing all these other people. Spanneraol (talk) 13:42, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So what? I don't care! I am just saying anyway. If you are going to stay stuff like that to me again, I will not respond to you anymore! THAT IS YOUR LAST WARNING!! Ashbeckjonathan 23:31, 22 May 2013 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Al_Pawlowski&oldid=1136114111"