Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill Forman (radio)

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. Aoidh (talk) 04:26, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Bill Forman (radio)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Bill Forman (radio) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Subject may not be notable enough to deserve its standalone article. The subject was a radio announcer and actor. The sources establish only two things. That Bill Forman (Sometimes mentioned Bill Forman) was a real person, who worked at KMPC, and has also appeared on 'The Whistler'. WP:ENT states that for notability, the subject should have significant roles in multiple notable productions, which this article clearly fails. WP:SUSTAINED states that the subject should have sustained coverage, rather than brief bursts of news coverage. The sources however, establish that the subject only received 'brief bursts' of coverage over a few decades.

Summary of what the sources provide:

• Source 1 trivially mentions the subject appearing on 'The Whistler'. (This source isn't significant coverage)
• Source 2 gives a biography of Forman, while establishing the fact that he has worked in 'The Whistler'. (The only source that extensively covers the subject of the article.
• Source 3 trivially mentions Foreman (instead of Forman) while establishing the fact that he worked at KMPC. (This source isn't significant coverage)
• Source 4 again mentions that Foreman has joined KMPC. (This source isn't significant coverage)
• Source 5 covers that the subject has appeared in 'The Whistler'.
• Source 7 is an analysis that again, trivially mentions that the subject was an announcer. (This source isn't significant coverage)

I couldn't find any information about source 8, 9. From what I've concluded:

• Volume 191 of Variety magazine was published on July 1, 1953, NOT July 8, 1953. Whose page 24 neither has an article from someone named Herm, nor mentions Tony Martin Show, and thus the subject of the article.

• Volume 158, May 1945 edition of Variety Magazine was published on May 2, 1945, and NOT May 16, 1945 as claimed in the references. Whose 55th page doesn't have an article titled "Chatter: Hollywood".

The article was previously moved to draft, per WP:DRAFTIFY, as the author claims that the subject is notable and the article will receive updates in the future. The article was then proposed for deletion, but the author failed to address the concerns mentioned above while removing prod. EnormityOP (talk) 13:53, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and Radio. EnormityOP (talk) 13:53, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

References

• Speedy keep -- quite notable! The announcer and/or narrator on numerous radio shows, including some shows that ran 5-10+ years. A picture of notability and well-sourced.

  Addressing the prod points:

  "The subject was a radio announcer and actor. The sources establish only two things. That Bill Forman (Sometimes mentioned Bill Forman) was a real person, who worked at KMPC, and has also appeared on 'The Whistler'. WP:ENT states that for notability, the subject should have significant roles in multiple notable productions, which this article clearly fails."

  I think you mean sometimes written as "Bill Foreman". Kay Kyser's show, the Zane Grey Show, and The Tony Martin Show are not notable productions or the sources do not support that he was on those shows? It clearly passes.

  "Summary of what the sources provide: Source 1 trivially mentions the subject appearing on 'The Whistler'. (This source isn't significant coverage) Source 2 gives a biography of Forman, while establishing the fact that he has worked in 'The Whistler'. Source 3[1] trivially mentions Foreman (instead of Forman) while establishing the fact that he worked at KMPC. (This source isn't significant coverage) Source 4[2] again mentions that Foreman has joined KMPC. (This source isn't significant coverage) Source 5 covers that the subject has appeared in 'The Whistler'. Source 7[3] is an analysis that again, trivially mentions that the subject was an announcer. (This source isn't significant coverage)"

  So source 2 is significant coverage. Source 3 is brief, but you have confused "brief" with "trivial"; he is the subject of the coverage there. Hardly objectionable in a biography. And you object to an extra letter in the name or are you trying to point out... what, exactly? Source 5 backs up notability with significant coverage... Source 7 confirms his work on another show. There be the "multiple notable productions" that disproves your deletion nomination statement.

  "I couldn't find any information about source 8, 9. From what I've concluded: Volume 191 of Variety magazine was published on July 1, 1953, NOT July 8, 1953.[4] Whose page 24 neither has an article from someone named Herm, nor mentions Tony Martin Show, and thus the subject of the article."

  I don't know what you mean w/ "couldn't find any information about source 8, 9". If you mean you couldn't locate it, I don't know what to say... Your fragmented sentence has no subject, so I can't be sure which date you mean when you say that page 24 does not have that information. I think you may not have the best understanding of the norms of periodical publication or metadata. A volume is a collection of issues; I don't know how Variety divvies up their year now or did then. An issue is what is published on a particular date; individual issues make up a volume. I copy the citations as they are generated w/in Proquest w/ some cleanup; I will check the citations of 8 & 9 (downloaded; I don't have constant access to the database) later and correct an error of date if one exists, but it is possible that you're looking at the wrong date due to an error in the metadata. This is why it's important to look at a whole citation and, if information conflicts, resolve or simply note the conflict rather than make bad-faith accusations to editors.

  "Volume 158, May 1945 edition of Variety Magazine was published on May 2, 1945, and NOT May 16, 1945 as claimed in the references.[5] Whose 55th page doesn't have an article titled "Chatter: Hollywood"."

  When you say "whose", again, that's confusing--to which issue do you refer? The 2nd or the 16th? And what is your source for the May 2 publication date being correct for those numbers, anyway? Please link us. 3 links you provided aren't working for me:

  • https://mediahistoryproject.org/reader.php?id=variety191-1953-07
  • https://mediahistoryproject.org/reader.php?id=variety138-1940-05
  • https://archive.org/details/variety158-1945-05/page/n53/mode/2up

  "If I'm wrong, please feel free to link Source 8, 9. (proposed by EnormityOP)"

  Alas, I cannot link a paywalled source, but I will check them to see whether there may be a problem w/ the citation. Have you considered searching rather than browsing?

  "The article was previously moved to draft, per WP:DRAFTIFY, as the author claims that the subject is notable and the article will receive updates in the future. The article was then proposed for deletion, but the author failed to address the concerns mentioned above while removing prod."

  Ha. Be candid: you draftified stating that the article was not "complete enough," right? That was an invalid reason to draftify and you have not acknowledged that as of yet. And that's fine. I removed the prod because those at AfD have a good grasp of notability and sourcing and can enhance the article as we move along. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 14:05, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Comment Contrary to the nomination statement ("The sources however, establish that the subject only received 'brief bursts' of coverage over a few decades"), SUSTAINED does not apply, as SUSTAINED says: "If reliable sources cover a person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual". The trades covered his career for quite some time and not for a single event; he was remembered decades after the end of the golden age of radio. Hardly a single event or a truly low-profile individual. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 14:10, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

• Keep The sources in the article clearly establish notability, in particular [1], [2], [3], [4]. The Variety refs are correct; I've added urls to the citations. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 20:51, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you for adding those, Sojourner in the earth. This and my review of my own citations suggests that EnormityOP, who mentioned falsified citations in the prod statement, avoided going to the dates and page numbers provided in citations. They said, "the article may contain falsified information in references," but they hadn't even gone to the right date. But as they first draftified the article because it was not "complete", I think perhaps they just don't like the article. Ah well. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 22:23, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

• Keep; this article is mature enough to pass our guidelines due to its sourcing and coverage. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 00:11, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
• Keep - The independent reliable sources demonstrate the notability of the subject and have been verified. The article passes the minimum requirements for inclusion. --ARoseWolf 20:37, 6 April 2023 (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.