Home • Search • Translate
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 no consensus. Stifle ( talk) 09:48, 17 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Aaron Carotta

Aaron Carotta (  | 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 TV person. Retrieved from WP:PROD by the subject themselves. Lots of passing mentions and minor credits; a few puff pieces with no evidence of independent journalistic research but no solid sources. Stuartyeates ( talk) 02:47, 28 November 2014 (UTC) reply

I find it amazing that Stuart has multiple accounts and having lived in NZ cant seem to find any current listing or notable credits. Perhaps this link will provide Stuart what he needs to limit his sense of power. http://www.choicetv.co.nz/tv-guide Currently airing in your backyard. -- 70.198.45.108 ( talk • contribs) 13:19, 29 November 2014 (UTC) reply

That page lists one credit (as Aadeventure Aaron). It lists it six times, as the series repeats on the schedule, but having one credit listed by the broadcaster does not make one achieve notablity. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 15:48, 29 November 2014

ok...? I believe you mean 'Adventure Aaron'? Again, notable is debatable, perhaps your looking for a few other links to validate the information, here is just a few?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.198.42.135 ( talk) 19:21, 29 November 2014 (UTC) reply

"I received an email from one of the major contributors about this page. I appreciate you taking time out of your day Nat, Stuart, Gene. I have nothing to do with this site or info, but I can assure you the links and info seems to be correct. A simple google search for both confirms it all and as far as whats notable or not, could always be up for debate. Bottom line is the links are correct and factual"-Aaron Carotta, aka Adventure Aaron.

To quote the relavent policy, we're looking for "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." The excludes: one-line credits; press releases from his employer or associated parties; promotional material for events where he will be appearing; interview-based non-adversarial material; etc. Did I miss anything? Stuartyeates ( talk) 19:57, 29 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Yes, I believe we all know its obvious you did. Instead of quickly responding, perhaps you should look at the links provided above, IMDB?!-MAV TV?! (A major network not employer as the page suggest as an independent producer, and numerous listing including the TV guide. Looks to me as if your going out of your way to make a point instead of paying more attention to your own reasons for numerous different accounts...but hey, maybe that is just your sole MO. Out of curiosity, Choice TV which doesn't even air in the US, instead your very home country, has current airing on now. How would that contradict or justify deletion? Its also not an employer as they license other materials and had numerous press links including Food TV in NZ to reference this deal. I am assuming you do not have a TV which would be the only way I could justify your initial flag. 21:17, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

First off, please stop with the personal attacks. They do not advance your argument, they discourage people from taking you seriously, and they are against Wikipedia policy. Having said that: IMDB does not signify notability. They try to list every credit for everyone. Having one's name in there is no more an indication of notability than is having a listing in a phone book. A network airing a show is not an independent source. A TV listing shows that a show exists, but does not signify notability. Again, as Stuartyeates has pointed out, we're looking for significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 22:06, 29 November 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete As noted above fails SIGCOV. I would also note that it is difficult to establish notability in an article which has been edited not only by the subject but also a number of other single purpose accounts and IPs which seem to constitute significant COI, not to mention IP 70.198.42.135, whose only contribution to wikipedia is this discussion. DerbyCountyinNZ ( Talk Contribs) 06:20, 30 November 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I have fixed all the links on the page and have added citations. Please have a look. Thanks -- 122.58.186.3 ( talk) 07:29, 30 November 2014 (UTC) reply

I've been asked to take another look and 'look at every single link.' So:

I hope this helps. Stuartyeates ( talk) 09:28, 30 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Unlike yourself, I will revert to the simple understanding that if you have the time to go through and evaluate all of these, it is a case in point. The mentions in some of these, 'press release' which is from the tourism board to which many of these papers are funded by, does not object to the guidelines, nor does 'fly-in-fish-fly-out non-independent (author admits the subject is a friend)'. I question your stance on it and like myself, helped Aaron by contributing to this original page. Anyone is entitle to be a friend of his and paying it forward for him, is the 'notable' thing to do. The fact that he's friends with the author of one of your examples, would suggest he is a notable person given that article was published in the NZ herald. You can decide if your personal choice to debate that quideline, is the notable life decision you feel good with in life. I beg to differ and personally suggest you proposed correction instead of deleting. Then perhaps you would be taken a 'bit more serious'. 18:01, 1 December 2014 (UTC)18:01, 1 December 2014 (UTC)18:01, 1 December 2014 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.198.2.252 ( talk)

  • Keep "Significant" simply means significant enough to establish notability. What is "significant" is an opinion. It's true that many of the sources listed by Stuartyeates are not usable due to independence and PR issues. However the ones marked "non-adversarial interview-based article" are acceptable as markers of notability. There is nothing in the guidelines that say these sources are not reliable. It's kind of ludicrous to frame a source that quotes the subject as being an "interview" because in that case any article that quotes someone is an interview. And then require it to be an "adversarial" type of article, whatever that means. The notability guidelines have a lower bar. The bar is being artificially raised due to COI and other concerns that have nothing to do with the sources. -- Green C 16:01, 30 November 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I have no idea what you are talking about when you think none of these achieve notability. Firstly alot of these are from TV Networks in the USA. Also alot are articles around NZ on a reliable News website. Not in depth? - http://www.washingtonian.com/blogs/bestbites/food-restaurant-news/heres-your-chance-to-eat-on-television.php really? This is a huge source along with the NZ Herald links etc, which by fact is the largest online news source in NZ. Throng in NZ actually sends out most of the corporate press releases and has been used as a source many times. I do not understand how you think this article is not reliable, at all. He has a huge amount of coverage and I am sure other editors will agree. Thanks -- 122.58.186.3 ( talk) 17:30, 30 November 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Responding to "not in depth" with a five-paragraph piece doesn't exactly make your case. And it doesn't matter what service is being used to distribute a press release; a press release does not establish notability, as anyone can issue one. I suggest you review the general notability guidelines and consider what they are pushing toward. That doesn't mean that every call being made by Stuart is correct (a source need not be adversarial so long as it's independent), but you seem to be working under some sort of assumption of what "notability" means that does not accord with its use in the context of Wikipedia. Simple database listings of credits do not indicate notability. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 20:23, 30 November 2014 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 21:31, 5 December 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Despite the filibustering from anon IPs--- try WP:KEEPCONCISE, willya?--- when you weed out all the chaff and garbage there's no there there. The IPs keep asking what they need to come up with to prove the subject's notability. Here's what. NEWSPAPER ARTICLES, which discuss the subject in significant detail, and not just mention his name in passing, and not just the hometown weekly. Don't take my word for it, read WP:BIO, WP:GNG and WP:V for yourselves. (Also, get a grip. You can "not take us seriously" all you like, but if you think that razzing on folks is the best way to save your article, just wait another couple days and see how well that works out.) Nha Trang Allons! 21:50, 5 December 2014 (UTC) reply

KEEP It would appear to me that there are articles sourced which have more than enough acceptable markers of notability as some would agree above. I also did a search on Google referring the subject to which many more articles of notability have arrived. I would suggest the 'clean up' the questionable links and continue to contribute the notable ones. It would also appear that this was deletion proposal was created by one particular account that my have an ax to the page in general. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sftimes ( talk • contribs) 22:51, 8 December 2014 (UTC) — Sftimes ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

  • Of course the deletion proposal was created by one individual (that's how all Article For Deletion proposals are done) and it's someone who has a problem with the page in general (if they didn't think that the page had a general problem, rather than individual problems that could be reasonably fixed, why would they propose deletion?) If you want to suggest that some of the links establish notability, you should note which of the links provide that, so that your claims can be recognized as valid or addressed with concern. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 04:01, 9 December 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I think this is cut and try and based on the comment from Nat on a few various occasions, it would appear to me that the level of interest is unusually stronger than normal for a typical editor making comments about a violation. Regardless here are a few closing links which as previously mentioned, I confirmed notability. I searched for ones provided by a creditable source referencing the subjects story and bio as it pertains to the Wiki Page

https://soundcloud.com/adventureaaron/newstalk-zb-new-zealand - Appears to be a valid interview with a top news personality that suggest details on what the original subjects pages, refers to.

http://fourhourworkweek.com/2009/12/22/cold-remedy-free-flights-anywhere-in-the-world-plus-live-qa-tonight/#more-2421 - Tim Ferriss, a best selling author seems to break the initial story on the subject here.

http://choicetv.co.nz/component/k2/item/1090-catch-cook-with-adventure-aaron - A current tv show listing about the subject and his show Sftimes ( talk) 13:54, 9 December 2014 (UTC) reply

    • A few notes:
      • I have struck out your second "keep" !vote above. It is practice in these deletion discussion for each user to only get one visible bolded !vote, so that they do not get undue weight in analyzing the discussion. If you have previously placed a "keep" statement in this discussion using an IP address rather than the new sftimes account, please indicate which one.
      • The phrasing of your message can be read as saying that I was the one who proposed the deletion of this page, which is not the case.
      • The Ferries blog would appear to be a self-published source, and per WP:SPS, we do not accept self-published sources as reliable sourced about third parties.
      • The ChoiceTV listing is a channel promoting their own product. It is not independent, and thus does not reflect notability. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 16:30, 9 December 2014 (UTC) reply

I'm very sorry, I think, I came here by opening a wrong door on the Net- but curious as I am, I tried to read and understand whereabout serious people are discussing. Don't really get a clue. What's , actually the problem? Do you propose to delete an article or the links/sources by the article?? There is nothing wrong with article self , I think - he (whoever it was) didn't lie a word. OK, there may be discussion about some .. "lighting" and "sound effects" - but which man doesn't like to have the greatest one? [reputation] ( to be honest, women do it often too, just more subtle and sophisticated). Is he "important " enough to get his wiki-place? I though, Wikipedia was initially created for users- readers, curious people like me. About 50 000 people on Facebook and almost same on Twitter were curious and even liked him - I found people on Wikipedia with much less . Is he really good? Don't know, but if TV channels pay for the second seasons of his series - obviously they find him good enough? Oh, and that "journalist-being-friend"-question ... Excuse me, would someone write an article about a person, that he doesn't know, doesn't like, doesn't find interesting? Yes, perhaps, if he got paid therefor. Independent-dept? If you well interested in someone's story, feel you curious/inspired/surprised/amused...or just like the way he smiles - are you friends? Who am I to decide? Just a little, curious woman that likes Wiki a lot - because you can find here everything in the world and beyond what you want to know [By the way - I'm ridiculous superficial, never can take a part in intellectual discussions of my friends - I constantly forget the name of "Run, rabbit"-author, hate Chehov, can't remember if I've seen anything of Fellini, all physical formula's passed by my brain without living a trace and certainly don't ask me anything about sources- but believe me or not, I've read that article wrote by friend and even seen the video - friend or not, he just very accurate describes episode and he has sharp and funny tong ( should he use it only for friends?!) I'd vote "live and let him live" -if I'd found the vote-button ;-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Camel-on-the-beach ( talk • contribs) 21:10, 15 December 2014 (UTC) reply

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Shanks, Amy (2012-02-06). "TV adventure star samples the wild life". The New Zealand Herald. Retrieved 2014-12-16.

      The article notes:

      Aaron Carotta spent three days in Hawke's Bay last week, filming the show, which focuses on adventure and diverse foods, and features internationally regarded guest chefs.

      His challenge while in the Bay was to catch a wild pig, which chef Peta Mathias made into a gourmet "boil up" at a Master Class at Cape Kidnappers Lodge.

      "We were able to catch a wild pig and stopped off at the Hastings Farmers Market, which was an adventure in itself," Mr Carotta said.

    2. Arneal, Nathan (2014-07-23). "Wehner risks life and limb globetrotting for reality TV show". North Bend Eagle. Archived from the original on 2014-12-16. Retrieved 2014-12-16.

      The article notes:

      It started with a video he posted to the Facebook page of “Adventure” Aaron Carotta auditioning for a spot on the TV show Bucket Wish.

      Carotta, an Omaha native, has produced TV shows such as Alive! with Adventure Aaron and Catch and Cook, shows that featured various adventures around the globe.

      His latest venture, Bucket Wish, will be appearing on MavTV (DirecTV channel 214, Dish 248) this fall. A Facebook casting call asked viewers to send in videos of themselves and pick one of 13 adventures they wanted to go on.

    3. Ryan, Rebecca (2013-09-03). "Waitaki to be world famous". The Oamaru Mail. Archived from the original on 2014-12-16. Retrieved 2014-12-16.

      The article notes:

      Thrill-seeking American TV presenter Aaron Carotta was in Waitaki over the weekend, filming an episode of Catch And Cook with Adventure Aaron.

      The 30-minute feature on the Waitaki District, features Carotta being challenged by Oamaru chef James Glucksman, to track down certain ingredients.

      ...

      The show follows Carotta with his catches including hunting, fishing and more. The show is filmed and screened worldwide.

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Aaron Carotta to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard ( talk) 20:39, 16 December 2014 (UTC) reply

  • I fully endorse Green Cardamom's comment:

    "Significant" simply means significant enough to establish notability. What is "significant" is an opinion. It's true that many of the sources listed by Stuartyeates are not usable due to independence and PR issues. However the ones marked "non-adversarial interview-based article" are acceptable as markers of notability. There is nothing in the guidelines that say these sources are not reliable. It's kind of ludicrous to frame a source that quotes the subject as being an "interview" because in that case any article that quotes someone is an interview. And then require it to be an "adversarial" type of article, whatever that means. The notability guidelines have a lower bar. The bar is being artificially raised due to COI and other concerns that have nothing to do with the sources.

    Cunard ( talk) 20:39, 16 December 2014 (UTC) reply
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/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Aaron_Carotta&oldid=1223061511"
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 no consensus. Stifle ( talk) 09:48, 17 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Aaron Carotta

Aaron Carotta (  | 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 TV person. Retrieved from WP:PROD by the subject themselves. Lots of passing mentions and minor credits; a few puff pieces with no evidence of independent journalistic research but no solid sources. Stuartyeates ( talk) 02:47, 28 November 2014 (UTC) reply

I find it amazing that Stuart has multiple accounts and having lived in NZ cant seem to find any current listing or notable credits. Perhaps this link will provide Stuart what he needs to limit his sense of power. http://www.choicetv.co.nz/tv-guide Currently airing in your backyard. -- 70.198.45.108 ( talk • contribs) 13:19, 29 November 2014 (UTC) reply

That page lists one credit (as Aadeventure Aaron). It lists it six times, as the series repeats on the schedule, but having one credit listed by the broadcaster does not make one achieve notablity. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 15:48, 29 November 2014

ok...? I believe you mean 'Adventure Aaron'? Again, notable is debatable, perhaps your looking for a few other links to validate the information, here is just a few?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.198.42.135 ( talk) 19:21, 29 November 2014 (UTC) reply

"I received an email from one of the major contributors about this page. I appreciate you taking time out of your day Nat, Stuart, Gene. I have nothing to do with this site or info, but I can assure you the links and info seems to be correct. A simple google search for both confirms it all and as far as whats notable or not, could always be up for debate. Bottom line is the links are correct and factual"-Aaron Carotta, aka Adventure Aaron.

To quote the relavent policy, we're looking for "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." The excludes: one-line credits; press releases from his employer or associated parties; promotional material for events where he will be appearing; interview-based non-adversarial material; etc. Did I miss anything? Stuartyeates ( talk) 19:57, 29 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Yes, I believe we all know its obvious you did. Instead of quickly responding, perhaps you should look at the links provided above, IMDB?!-MAV TV?! (A major network not employer as the page suggest as an independent producer, and numerous listing including the TV guide. Looks to me as if your going out of your way to make a point instead of paying more attention to your own reasons for numerous different accounts...but hey, maybe that is just your sole MO. Out of curiosity, Choice TV which doesn't even air in the US, instead your very home country, has current airing on now. How would that contradict or justify deletion? Its also not an employer as they license other materials and had numerous press links including Food TV in NZ to reference this deal. I am assuming you do not have a TV which would be the only way I could justify your initial flag. 21:17, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

First off, please stop with the personal attacks. They do not advance your argument, they discourage people from taking you seriously, and they are against Wikipedia policy. Having said that: IMDB does not signify notability. They try to list every credit for everyone. Having one's name in there is no more an indication of notability than is having a listing in a phone book. A network airing a show is not an independent source. A TV listing shows that a show exists, but does not signify notability. Again, as Stuartyeates has pointed out, we're looking for significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 22:06, 29 November 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete As noted above fails SIGCOV. I would also note that it is difficult to establish notability in an article which has been edited not only by the subject but also a number of other single purpose accounts and IPs which seem to constitute significant COI, not to mention IP 70.198.42.135, whose only contribution to wikipedia is this discussion. DerbyCountyinNZ ( Talk Contribs) 06:20, 30 November 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I have fixed all the links on the page and have added citations. Please have a look. Thanks -- 122.58.186.3 ( talk) 07:29, 30 November 2014 (UTC) reply

I've been asked to take another look and 'look at every single link.' So:

I hope this helps. Stuartyeates ( talk) 09:28, 30 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Unlike yourself, I will revert to the simple understanding that if you have the time to go through and evaluate all of these, it is a case in point. The mentions in some of these, 'press release' which is from the tourism board to which many of these papers are funded by, does not object to the guidelines, nor does 'fly-in-fish-fly-out non-independent (author admits the subject is a friend)'. I question your stance on it and like myself, helped Aaron by contributing to this original page. Anyone is entitle to be a friend of his and paying it forward for him, is the 'notable' thing to do. The fact that he's friends with the author of one of your examples, would suggest he is a notable person given that article was published in the NZ herald. You can decide if your personal choice to debate that quideline, is the notable life decision you feel good with in life. I beg to differ and personally suggest you proposed correction instead of deleting. Then perhaps you would be taken a 'bit more serious'. 18:01, 1 December 2014 (UTC)18:01, 1 December 2014 (UTC)18:01, 1 December 2014 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.198.2.252 ( talk)

  • Keep "Significant" simply means significant enough to establish notability. What is "significant" is an opinion. It's true that many of the sources listed by Stuartyeates are not usable due to independence and PR issues. However the ones marked "non-adversarial interview-based article" are acceptable as markers of notability. There is nothing in the guidelines that say these sources are not reliable. It's kind of ludicrous to frame a source that quotes the subject as being an "interview" because in that case any article that quotes someone is an interview. And then require it to be an "adversarial" type of article, whatever that means. The notability guidelines have a lower bar. The bar is being artificially raised due to COI and other concerns that have nothing to do with the sources. -- Green C 16:01, 30 November 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I have no idea what you are talking about when you think none of these achieve notability. Firstly alot of these are from TV Networks in the USA. Also alot are articles around NZ on a reliable News website. Not in depth? - http://www.washingtonian.com/blogs/bestbites/food-restaurant-news/heres-your-chance-to-eat-on-television.php really? This is a huge source along with the NZ Herald links etc, which by fact is the largest online news source in NZ. Throng in NZ actually sends out most of the corporate press releases and has been used as a source many times. I do not understand how you think this article is not reliable, at all. He has a huge amount of coverage and I am sure other editors will agree. Thanks -- 122.58.186.3 ( talk) 17:30, 30 November 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Responding to "not in depth" with a five-paragraph piece doesn't exactly make your case. And it doesn't matter what service is being used to distribute a press release; a press release does not establish notability, as anyone can issue one. I suggest you review the general notability guidelines and consider what they are pushing toward. That doesn't mean that every call being made by Stuart is correct (a source need not be adversarial so long as it's independent), but you seem to be working under some sort of assumption of what "notability" means that does not accord with its use in the context of Wikipedia. Simple database listings of credits do not indicate notability. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 20:23, 30 November 2014 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 21:31, 5 December 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Despite the filibustering from anon IPs--- try WP:KEEPCONCISE, willya?--- when you weed out all the chaff and garbage there's no there there. The IPs keep asking what they need to come up with to prove the subject's notability. Here's what. NEWSPAPER ARTICLES, which discuss the subject in significant detail, and not just mention his name in passing, and not just the hometown weekly. Don't take my word for it, read WP:BIO, WP:GNG and WP:V for yourselves. (Also, get a grip. You can "not take us seriously" all you like, but if you think that razzing on folks is the best way to save your article, just wait another couple days and see how well that works out.) Nha Trang Allons! 21:50, 5 December 2014 (UTC) reply

KEEP It would appear to me that there are articles sourced which have more than enough acceptable markers of notability as some would agree above. I also did a search on Google referring the subject to which many more articles of notability have arrived. I would suggest the 'clean up' the questionable links and continue to contribute the notable ones. It would also appear that this was deletion proposal was created by one particular account that my have an ax to the page in general. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sftimes ( talk • contribs) 22:51, 8 December 2014 (UTC) — Sftimes ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

  • Of course the deletion proposal was created by one individual (that's how all Article For Deletion proposals are done) and it's someone who has a problem with the page in general (if they didn't think that the page had a general problem, rather than individual problems that could be reasonably fixed, why would they propose deletion?) If you want to suggest that some of the links establish notability, you should note which of the links provide that, so that your claims can be recognized as valid or addressed with concern. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 04:01, 9 December 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I think this is cut and try and based on the comment from Nat on a few various occasions, it would appear to me that the level of interest is unusually stronger than normal for a typical editor making comments about a violation. Regardless here are a few closing links which as previously mentioned, I confirmed notability. I searched for ones provided by a creditable source referencing the subjects story and bio as it pertains to the Wiki Page

https://soundcloud.com/adventureaaron/newstalk-zb-new-zealand - Appears to be a valid interview with a top news personality that suggest details on what the original subjects pages, refers to.

http://fourhourworkweek.com/2009/12/22/cold-remedy-free-flights-anywhere-in-the-world-plus-live-qa-tonight/#more-2421 - Tim Ferriss, a best selling author seems to break the initial story on the subject here.

http://choicetv.co.nz/component/k2/item/1090-catch-cook-with-adventure-aaron - A current tv show listing about the subject and his show Sftimes ( talk) 13:54, 9 December 2014 (UTC) reply

    • A few notes:
      • I have struck out your second "keep" !vote above. It is practice in these deletion discussion for each user to only get one visible bolded !vote, so that they do not get undue weight in analyzing the discussion. If you have previously placed a "keep" statement in this discussion using an IP address rather than the new sftimes account, please indicate which one.
      • The phrasing of your message can be read as saying that I was the one who proposed the deletion of this page, which is not the case.
      • The Ferries blog would appear to be a self-published source, and per WP:SPS, we do not accept self-published sources as reliable sourced about third parties.
      • The ChoiceTV listing is a channel promoting their own product. It is not independent, and thus does not reflect notability. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 16:30, 9 December 2014 (UTC) reply

I'm very sorry, I think, I came here by opening a wrong door on the Net- but curious as I am, I tried to read and understand whereabout serious people are discussing. Don't really get a clue. What's , actually the problem? Do you propose to delete an article or the links/sources by the article?? There is nothing wrong with article self , I think - he (whoever it was) didn't lie a word. OK, there may be discussion about some .. "lighting" and "sound effects" - but which man doesn't like to have the greatest one? [reputation] ( to be honest, women do it often too, just more subtle and sophisticated). Is he "important " enough to get his wiki-place? I though, Wikipedia was initially created for users- readers, curious people like me. About 50 000 people on Facebook and almost same on Twitter were curious and even liked him - I found people on Wikipedia with much less . Is he really good? Don't know, but if TV channels pay for the second seasons of his series - obviously they find him good enough? Oh, and that "journalist-being-friend"-question ... Excuse me, would someone write an article about a person, that he doesn't know, doesn't like, doesn't find interesting? Yes, perhaps, if he got paid therefor. Independent-dept? If you well interested in someone's story, feel you curious/inspired/surprised/amused...or just like the way he smiles - are you friends? Who am I to decide? Just a little, curious woman that likes Wiki a lot - because you can find here everything in the world and beyond what you want to know [By the way - I'm ridiculous superficial, never can take a part in intellectual discussions of my friends - I constantly forget the name of "Run, rabbit"-author, hate Chehov, can't remember if I've seen anything of Fellini, all physical formula's passed by my brain without living a trace and certainly don't ask me anything about sources- but believe me or not, I've read that article wrote by friend and even seen the video - friend or not, he just very accurate describes episode and he has sharp and funny tong ( should he use it only for friends?!) I'd vote "live and let him live" -if I'd found the vote-button ;-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Camel-on-the-beach ( talk • contribs) 21:10, 15 December 2014 (UTC) reply

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Shanks, Amy (2012-02-06). "TV adventure star samples the wild life". The New Zealand Herald. Retrieved 2014-12-16.

      The article notes:

      Aaron Carotta spent three days in Hawke's Bay last week, filming the show, which focuses on adventure and diverse foods, and features internationally regarded guest chefs.

      His challenge while in the Bay was to catch a wild pig, which chef Peta Mathias made into a gourmet "boil up" at a Master Class at Cape Kidnappers Lodge.

      "We were able to catch a wild pig and stopped off at the Hastings Farmers Market, which was an adventure in itself," Mr Carotta said.

    2. Arneal, Nathan (2014-07-23). "Wehner risks life and limb globetrotting for reality TV show". North Bend Eagle. Archived from the original on 2014-12-16. Retrieved 2014-12-16.

      The article notes:

      It started with a video he posted to the Facebook page of “Adventure” Aaron Carotta auditioning for a spot on the TV show Bucket Wish.

      Carotta, an Omaha native, has produced TV shows such as Alive! with Adventure Aaron and Catch and Cook, shows that featured various adventures around the globe.

      His latest venture, Bucket Wish, will be appearing on MavTV (DirecTV channel 214, Dish 248) this fall. A Facebook casting call asked viewers to send in videos of themselves and pick one of 13 adventures they wanted to go on.

    3. Ryan, Rebecca (2013-09-03). "Waitaki to be world famous". The Oamaru Mail. Archived from the original on 2014-12-16. Retrieved 2014-12-16.

      The article notes:

      Thrill-seeking American TV presenter Aaron Carotta was in Waitaki over the weekend, filming an episode of Catch And Cook with Adventure Aaron.

      The 30-minute feature on the Waitaki District, features Carotta being challenged by Oamaru chef James Glucksman, to track down certain ingredients.

      ...

      The show follows Carotta with his catches including hunting, fishing and more. The show is filmed and screened worldwide.

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Aaron Carotta to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard ( talk) 20:39, 16 December 2014 (UTC) reply

  • I fully endorse Green Cardamom's comment:

    "Significant" simply means significant enough to establish notability. What is "significant" is an opinion. It's true that many of the sources listed by Stuartyeates are not usable due to independence and PR issues. However the ones marked "non-adversarial interview-based article" are acceptable as markers of notability. There is nothing in the guidelines that say these sources are not reliable. It's kind of ludicrous to frame a source that quotes the subject as being an "interview" because in that case any article that quotes someone is an interview. And then require it to be an "adversarial" type of article, whatever that means. The notability guidelines have a lower bar. The bar is being artificially raised due to COI and other concerns that have nothing to do with the sources.

    Cunard ( talk) 20:39, 16 December 2014 (UTC) reply
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/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Aaron_Carotta&oldid=1223061511"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE