Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kelly Cass

Kelly Cass

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

This article was tagged BLPPROD, and I added a source, making it ineligible for that criterion. There has been some edit warring at The Weather Channel about whether Cass is notable, so I'm posting this seeking a wider consensus.

There seem to be few reliable sources about her and other TWC hosts, so we might not be able to expand this beyond a summary of her on-air positions and awards. As for my !vote, it's neutral. —Guan aco 02:12, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:14, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:14, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:15, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She's notable and it has a reliable source. Diako ^{« Talk »} 08:20, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Diako1971: The notability guidelines state "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.". What significant coverage has Kelly Cass garnered in multiple sources? 331dot (talk) 08:57, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking the article should be changed back to a redirect until she is written about more in more sources(which she isn't now from at least what I have seen). The article also seems to have been created by her husband [1] [2] who seems to feel that it is sexist and unfair to have an article about Kelly Cass' co-host and not her- but if she isn't written about as much, she wouldn't necessarily merit an article yet(WP:TOOSOON) even if her co-host(who does seem to have more things written about him) does. Her name can and probably should be placed in The Weather Channel just not as a link. 331dot (talk) 09:04, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not to throw him under the bus, but she has over five times as many real, authenticated followers on Social Media as he does (30x times as many on Facebook), so the statement above about who is "written about" more is not true. Keybeeny (talk) 15:04, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That may be true, but that's completely irrelevant because social media is not a reliable source, nor is our (WP editors') counting or other analysis thereof. DMacks (talk) 15:07, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the Year 2017 it is almost quaint to see the editors of Wikipedia trying to determine if someone is "noteworthy enough" using metrics which have passed into a bygone age. This question would not have even been raised without your unnecessary deletion of an entry which merely stated the fact that she is a host of AMHQ Weekend. We have easily established that fact, but now you feel it is necessary to determine if there is some other reason for mentioning or not mentioning it? Here she was on NBC Nightly News, seen by a far larger audience than CNN and TWC combined:

links
{{{1}}}

But there still needs to be a long drawn out discussion of whether or not it is accurate to state that she is host of AMHQ?? That's absurd.

The question was not whether there has been a lot of articles written about her which may be linked to on a PC, it was whether or not it is accurate to state on Wikipedia that she is the host of AMHQ. So you really need to just let it go and leave it to people who watch that channel, which apparently nobody here does. Which is fine, but if you did, you would also realize what a no-brainer it is to include Alexandra Wilson as host of Weather Underground as well. Keybeeny (talk) 15:53, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are conflating mentioning her and their being a separate article about her (The latter being the subject under discussion). No article here is limited to those in the know; everyone can weigh in on any article. Again, no one disputes your wife is on TWC. That's not the issue. 331dot (talk) 15:59, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, with all due respect, that is indeed the issue. When someone adds an AMHQ host to a list of AMHQ hosts (of which there are only five in the entire world), if that person is in fact an AMHQ host, then they belong on that list and your insistence that you are the arbiter of whether or not they belong on that list, even after having been presented with proof of such, amounts to you just ****. Keybeeny (talk) 16:16, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Keybeeny, consider this your formal warning for incivil discussion. Please focus on the WP content, not the your opinion of the editors. DMacks (talk) 16:25, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. This definitely does not pass WP:NOTABILITY, and the only references are attributed to her employer's website. The sources are clearly a violation of WP:SECONDARY. --Z L Media 17:33, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which happens to also be the case for others on the list. Apparently the fact that the employer's website (which actually now belongs to IBM and not TWC anymore) is one of the most heavily-trafficked on the Internet amounts to nothing, while a fraudulent, bot-created website like articlebio.com which gathers information from Social Media and re-packages it in a much more untrustworthy and grammatically incorrect format, is acceptable? The contradictions are mind-boggling here. Keybeeny (talk) 18:39, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The only weather-personality article I see that cites articlebio.com is Jen Carfagno. There are other cites as well (that one does not look critical), and that article itself is tagged as possibly not meeting WP:BIO either (that is, it could wind up at Articles for deletion too). An argument of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is sometimes just as likely to get other-stuff deleted too vs getting what you want kept. DMacks (talk) 18:45, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I requested external opinion on the general usability of that site. Feel free to comment further at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#articlebio.com on that specific issue. DMacks (talk) 18:56, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weather.com with few exceptions is the reference source for just about every single footnote of every single TWC on-air personality listed on Wikipedia. It is considered a trustworthy site, even though it actually no longer has any formal relationship with TWC after having been purchased by IBM. It is quite interesting to see the other folks' entries being questioned and calls made for their possible removal now when all that was necessary was to just allow the addition of the name of the fifth AMHQ host to the list of the other four. The staunch opposition being raised here and claims being made about what constitutes a trustworthy reference while being apparently unaware of what is actually already being used here raises questions about everything else found on Wikipedia. Keybeeny (talk) 19:16, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non notable TV presenter. Just because your face is on the screen doesn't make you notable. Nothing independent and in depth here Velella ^{Velella Talk} 19:20, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is an opinion which certainly has a valid basis; merely being on-screen does not necessarily make one notable. Of course, by that logic the others with the exception of Jim Cantore who is pretty well-known and possibly Reynolds Wolf who was on CNN for years before joining TWC would fall into the same category. The network tracks Nielsen ratings and one's reach on Social Media which are both pretty strong for Kelly Cass which is why she has been there for 18 years, but for a site like Wikipedia which insists on articles posted for web browsing on a PC which is a diminishing and declining source of information in the year 2017, apparently those metrics don't mean much. Keybeeny (talk) 19:31, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You pretty clearly identified the kernel of your concern: popularity or personnel issues and value to a business are not the same as notability, by widespread and long-standing consensus for our encyclopedia (WP:BIO has been mentioned before). You're welcome to try to push to change that, but this specific forum isn't the place. DMacks (talk) 19:38, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)That is not accurate. A reliable source (have you read that page?) is not limited to those online. It can be printed media as well or other media formats, as long as the source is reliable. As told to you already, user-editable sources like social media are not considered reliable sources. If you want to fight the battle to change that policy, you are free to, but that's how things stand now. You are also free to work to change what is considered notable for biographies(have you read that as well?) but, again, that's what we have now. If you find that unsatisfactory, there isn't much else anyone here can do for you.

In addition, as already stated, citing others in a similar position as your wife is only pointing out other things that likely need to be removed. As a volunteer project worked on by hundreds of thousands of people, some poor content gets through. 331dot (talk) 19:45, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you have now placed yourself in the position of saying, "Sure, there are a bunch of people who have appeared for many years on a cable network which reaches millions of viewers and they have shows which are aired every day on that channel, but we are unfamiliar with these people ourselves since we don't watch. So thus we can safely conclude they are not noteworthy." Keybeeny (talk) 19:57, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:RS standard is precisely so that we are not limited to those "in the know" (in the viewing area and care to watch the channel), but rather have a more neutral basis for deciding. We are all editors, there are no ordained specialists here. Instead, it was long decided that we look to others (and have specified the standards for accepting them). That's indepenent, reliable sources vs editors' own opinions, heresay, and non-independent sources. DMacks (talk) 20:11, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I do not see reliable sources independent of the subject, required for the general notability guideline. Sławomir Biały (talk) 19:58, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So then you must also be recommending the deletion of the entry for Paul Goodloe which has three citations, all from weather.com. Keybeeny (talk) 20:14, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:AFDHOWTO to learn how to make that request if you are interested and have the time to do so. As a volunteer project, we all choose where to spend our time. DMacks (talk) 20:20, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine with me if you want to nominate that for deletion too. Sławomir Biały (talk) 20:39, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. What would Wikipedia.com do without such vigilant and meticulous editors? When someone goes and completes a longstanding and unquestioned list by adding valid, proven, unrefuted information, the result turns out to be a recommendation for the deletion of the very list. Keybeeny (talk) 20:59, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the sources currently in the article. It´s easy to find passing mentions in reliable sources ([3][4][5]) but that is not enough per WP:GNG. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:27, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

However, this [6] might add to notability. I don´t think it´s selfpublished. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:52, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Being referred to as a Notable Personality on Wikipedia ([WRNN-TV]]) for years could possibly be an indication that someone has met the standard of being notable. Keybeeny (talk) 17:52, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]