The result was redirect to The Weather Channel w/o prejudice to article recreation if and when sufficient reliable source coverage can be found to establish WP:N. Ad Orientem ( talk) 02:24, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
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)
Keep. She's notable and it has a reliable source.
Diako «
Talk » 08:20, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
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)
links
|
---|
{{{1}}}
|
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)
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)
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)
Being referred to as a Notable Former On Air Staff on Wikipedia ( WRNN-TV ) for years could possibly be an indication that someone has met the standard of being notable. To reasonable people, anyway. Keybeeny ( talk) 17:52, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
True, Wikipedia is not a reliable source, but the folks who swooped in and deleted the entries at the Weather Channel wiki did not impose their handiwork years ago when the entries were made at RNN-TV since names like Brian Kenny and Kelly Cass and others belong on it. TV personalities reach millions of viewers and have a large body of work retrievable on Internet-hosted video, which makes them well-known and with large numbers of fans without necessarily having a large body of good old-fashioned plain text articles typed about them. Nice job finding that book reference, though. Keybeeny ( talk) 15:54, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
It is interesting that there is a criterion quite plainly listed on the notability criteria whose wording goes "Has been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media", which would appear to contradict your insistence that there is nothing notable about being featured in a most notable mainstream media outlet, for example the NBC Nightly News. That criterion is Wikipedia's standard for pornographic actors to be notable. Wikipedia has a different standard for journalists, obviously. So it is considered notable to simply appear in the media as long as it is for a lewd or lascivious purpose, but not for one such as forecasting and communicating. Not just appear, but be one of five featured hosts on a network's flagship offering and to have been for 18 years. Keybeeny ( talk) 06:37, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
I believe you are demonstrating that violating the policy of full disclosure is better than honoring it since you seem to use it in order to dismiss the discussion from the topic at hand to keep on referring to my personal relationship with it. Keybeeny ( talk) 15:04, 9 June 2017 (UTC) Additionally, the characterization you have made is actually not true, since the two networks have always been managed independently of one another and the decision to request someone to report for the NBC Nightly News was not merely at the direction of management, but the producers there would specifically request someone and decline to use another if the original one requested was not available. Keybeeny ( talk) 15:09, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Question for those who said delete: Are there specific reasons why we should delete this and not redirect it to The Weather Channel? — Guan aco 09:01, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
The result was redirect to The Weather Channel w/o prejudice to article recreation if and when sufficient reliable source coverage can be found to establish WP:N. Ad Orientem ( talk) 02:24, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
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)
Keep. She's notable and it has a reliable source.
Diako «
Talk » 08:20, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
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)
links
|
---|
{{{1}}}
|
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)
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)
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)
Being referred to as a Notable Former On Air Staff on Wikipedia ( WRNN-TV ) for years could possibly be an indication that someone has met the standard of being notable. To reasonable people, anyway. Keybeeny ( talk) 17:52, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
True, Wikipedia is not a reliable source, but the folks who swooped in and deleted the entries at the Weather Channel wiki did not impose their handiwork years ago when the entries were made at RNN-TV since names like Brian Kenny and Kelly Cass and others belong on it. TV personalities reach millions of viewers and have a large body of work retrievable on Internet-hosted video, which makes them well-known and with large numbers of fans without necessarily having a large body of good old-fashioned plain text articles typed about them. Nice job finding that book reference, though. Keybeeny ( talk) 15:54, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
It is interesting that there is a criterion quite plainly listed on the notability criteria whose wording goes "Has been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media", which would appear to contradict your insistence that there is nothing notable about being featured in a most notable mainstream media outlet, for example the NBC Nightly News. That criterion is Wikipedia's standard for pornographic actors to be notable. Wikipedia has a different standard for journalists, obviously. So it is considered notable to simply appear in the media as long as it is for a lewd or lascivious purpose, but not for one such as forecasting and communicating. Not just appear, but be one of five featured hosts on a network's flagship offering and to have been for 18 years. Keybeeny ( talk) 06:37, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
I believe you are demonstrating that violating the policy of full disclosure is better than honoring it since you seem to use it in order to dismiss the discussion from the topic at hand to keep on referring to my personal relationship with it. Keybeeny ( talk) 15:04, 9 June 2017 (UTC) Additionally, the characterization you have made is actually not true, since the two networks have always been managed independently of one another and the decision to request someone to report for the NBC Nightly News was not merely at the direction of management, but the producers there would specifically request someone and decline to use another if the original one requested was not available. Keybeeny ( talk) 15:09, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Question for those who said delete: Are there specific reasons why we should delete this and not redirect it to The Weather Channel? — Guan aco 09:01, 10 June 2017 (UTC)