Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Paul Keels
accusation of bias[edit]
To editor Vjmlhds: I have nothing against Paul Keels but I guess you struggle to understand WP:N. A couple weeks back, I declined a draft about a sportscaster. As expected, the author of that draft came to me with an OTHERCRAPEXISTS rationale, specifically mentioning Keels, as well as other broadcasters. I took a look at those articles he mentioned to examine his claim, which is why I tagged this article for notability issues. I told that other editor why looking at other articles wasn't a good plan. You showed up at my talk page not long after with your nonsense belief that some people are just notable because of their job, to which I replied. Had you bothered glancing up my talk page you'd've seen how I found out about Keels in the first place. Some Wikipedians tell me lies like we should treat each other like colleagues. Clearly you don't buy those stories either, because you make an unfounded accusation against me although I've been editing for 7+ years, have almost as many edits as you do, and I have 68 successful AfDs with more underway. Maybe next time re-think how you approach deletion. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:08, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Chris troutman: How about you not come at me with a "nose in the air" Wiki-snob attitude ("how I struggle to understand WP:N?") And you're an expert? I have news for you...people ARE notable because of the job they hold - that's why you know who they are to start with. When you bring in Wiki resumes in the conversation, that just shows you want to make this into a (gonna keep it tasteful) urinating contest where you want to show what a great Wikipedian you are. You want to make an example out of Keels to justify your opinion on the other article - that's what I meant to begin with...not a personal grudge against the man himself. Vjmlhds (talk) 23:21, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
- Not at all. Part of curating this encyclopedia is tagging articles for improvement and tagging for deletion when merited. There have been many times when a nomination of mine did not result in deletion. It changes nothing. The point is that I improve Wikipedia by cleaning out the messes. I brought up my resume as you call it only to point out that you show no WP:AGF toward me even though I'm not an IP or new editor. There's no example to be made here because there are probably hundreds of other articles about sportscasters, many more which will be made by new editors unaware of our conversation. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:20, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
- This isn't about AGF or if you had 1 edit or 1 million...if you talk to me as if you're the greatest thing to hit Wikipedia since Jimmy Wales, and that you need to "enlighten" me, I'm gonna call you out. And you are specifically trying to make an example out of this particular article, because you need to support why you declined that other article. The Paul Keels article is not a part of the "mess" as you call it. It's a perfectly acceptable article about someone who has done more than 99.9% of us will do. It's not like everyone and their uncle can say they've called NCAA D-1 Big 10 football and basketball for 30 years (for 2 different teams including National Championships and Final Fours) as well as MLB and the NBA, on top of writing a book and winning all kinds of awards...nah, that's not notable at all. We're not dealing with some high school football announcer in Fumblebuck, Wyoming that no one's ever heard of. If you call MLB, NFL, NBA, NHL, or NCAA D-1 football/basketball, you most certainly ARE NOTABLE, because that is the tippy-top creme-de-le-creme of sports in the U.S., and the announcers are as much a part of it as anybody. Almost sounds like you have a thing against sportscasters as a whole. Vjmlhds (talk) 00:51, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
- Again, we can debate what WP:NATH, WP:NRADIO, WP:CREATIVE, and WP:SPORTSPERSON actually say on the AfD. My question for you is, why do you accuse me of having some sort of bias or ill intent towards Keels, to sportscasters, people in Ohio, or whatever? Nominating an article for deletion is not a condemnation of the subject and yet you cast aspersions. Do you want to end up at a drama board because you need to sling an accusation instead of simply disagreeing with me? Chris Troutman (talk) 16:23, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
- My observation about this whole thing is that you are trying to back up your point about the Dave Eanet article by deleting the Paul Keels article. It isn't casting aspersions to state what this appears like to me. I wholeheartedly disagree with you about deleting the article on it's merits. It's the fact that you were the one who brought up the Eanet article to explain/justify why you want to delete this one...you declined Eanet, the other user brought up Keels, you are seeking to delete Keels on the same basis that you declined Eanet - how can you not say there is a connection, when you yourself brought it up to justify deleting Keels. No "drama" here, and this isn't personal - just business, as it does appear to me you are trying to make a point about Article A buy deleting Article B, and I'm also just getting a vibe from you that you don't think sportscasters as a whole should be getting articles period vis a vis WP:N and whatever other WP:___ you're throwing out there. Vjmlhds (talk) 03:18, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
- I think you need to re-read what you've written. You accused me at the start by saying
"This almost looks like a personal thing against Keels."
That's why I explained how I found this article in the first place, because I certainly didn't go looking to condemn Keels personally nor have I nominated only articles about nobody broadcasters in Ohio. Why you must insist that I have to be mean-spirited in order to nominate an article for deletion is the aspersion. Further, claiming"That's getting into WP:Point territory"
sounds like you want to take this to WP:ANI. I'm not proving a point because there's no point to be made. I don't need to justify declination of a draft by nominating other articles for deletion although both subjects are non-notable. We don't have a subject-specific notability guideline that presumes sportscasters to be notable, so they all have to pass something else like WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. I've declined more than 100 drafts in July 2020, alone which is most of the declinations I've made in the last couple years. Of the other sportscasters Eanet mentioned that same day I tagged Blaha for notability, I tagged Brandstatter for sourcing, I tagged McConnell for notability, and I tagged Carlin for notability and sourcing. Those tags are still there for other gardeners to address. Resistance about Brandstatter may lead to deletion. This is what gardeners do: when you find weeds you pull them. I don't have to have a grudge against sportscasters to nominate for AfD, and I wish you would just stick to arguing merits instead of insisting on ulterior motive. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:18, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
- I think you need to re-read what you've written. You accused me at the start by saying
- My observation about this whole thing is that you are trying to back up your point about the Dave Eanet article by deleting the Paul Keels article. It isn't casting aspersions to state what this appears like to me. I wholeheartedly disagree with you about deleting the article on it's merits. It's the fact that you were the one who brought up the Eanet article to explain/justify why you want to delete this one...you declined Eanet, the other user brought up Keels, you are seeking to delete Keels on the same basis that you declined Eanet - how can you not say there is a connection, when you yourself brought it up to justify deleting Keels. No "drama" here, and this isn't personal - just business, as it does appear to me you are trying to make a point about Article A buy deleting Article B, and I'm also just getting a vibe from you that you don't think sportscasters as a whole should be getting articles period vis a vis WP:N and whatever other WP:___ you're throwing out there. Vjmlhds (talk) 03:18, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
- Again, we can debate what WP:NATH, WP:NRADIO, WP:CREATIVE, and WP:SPORTSPERSON actually say on the AfD. My question for you is, why do you accuse me of having some sort of bias or ill intent towards Keels, to sportscasters, people in Ohio, or whatever? Nominating an article for deletion is not a condemnation of the subject and yet you cast aspersions. Do you want to end up at a drama board because you need to sling an accusation instead of simply disagreeing with me? Chris Troutman (talk) 16:23, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
- This isn't about AGF or if you had 1 edit or 1 million...if you talk to me as if you're the greatest thing to hit Wikipedia since Jimmy Wales, and that you need to "enlighten" me, I'm gonna call you out. And you are specifically trying to make an example out of this particular article, because you need to support why you declined that other article. The Paul Keels article is not a part of the "mess" as you call it. It's a perfectly acceptable article about someone who has done more than 99.9% of us will do. It's not like everyone and their uncle can say they've called NCAA D-1 Big 10 football and basketball for 30 years (for 2 different teams including National Championships and Final Fours) as well as MLB and the NBA, on top of writing a book and winning all kinds of awards...nah, that's not notable at all. We're not dealing with some high school football announcer in Fumblebuck, Wyoming that no one's ever heard of. If you call MLB, NFL, NBA, NHL, or NCAA D-1 football/basketball, you most certainly ARE NOTABLE, because that is the tippy-top creme-de-le-creme of sports in the U.S., and the announcers are as much a part of it as anybody. Almost sounds like you have a thing against sportscasters as a whole. Vjmlhds (talk) 00:51, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
- Not at all. Part of curating this encyclopedia is tagging articles for improvement and tagging for deletion when merited. There have been many times when a nomination of mine did not result in deletion. It changes nothing. The point is that I improve Wikipedia by cleaning out the messes. I brought up my resume as you call it only to point out that you show no WP:AGF toward me even though I'm not an IP or new editor. There's no example to be made here because there are probably hundreds of other articles about sportscasters, many more which will be made by new editors unaware of our conversation. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:20, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Chris troutman: How about you not come at me with a "nose in the air" Wiki-snob attitude ("how I struggle to understand WP:N?") And you're an expert? I have news for you...people ARE notable because of the job they hold - that's why you know who they are to start with. When you bring in Wiki resumes in the conversation, that just shows you want to make this into a (gonna keep it tasteful) urinating contest where you want to show what a great Wikipedian you are. You want to make an example out of Keels to justify your opinion on the other article - that's what I meant to begin with...not a personal grudge against the man himself. Vjmlhds (talk) 23:21, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
For what ever reason you nominated the article for deletion, it looks like it won't happen anyway, as right now it sits at 3 Keep, 1 Delete, and 1 non-committal. I know things could change, but as of now, it looks like you're fighting a losing battle, so I don't really care why you did it to be honest (all I did was just tell you how my 4 eyes...yes, I wear glasses...saw it), my focus is just to not let it happen. Vjmlhds (talk) 01:15, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
- Request closure of this thread. Editors are free to make good faith nominations of articles for deletion for any reason they see fit. I've not seen any policy violation here, but I would like for both parties to at least declare a WP:TRUCE if not make an WP:APOLOGY to each other -- so we can all get back to the business of building an encyclopedia. Communication is sometimes hard and misunderstandings sometimes happen.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:05, 2 August 2020 (UTC)