Talk:Jeff Howell

This article was nominated for deletion on 21 February 2014 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

What a sick puppy!

It is in the spirit of the hyperbole "I wouldn't piss on him if he were on fire" that i say "I wouldn't click edit, if that were sufficient to remove a ProD tag from this Dab". My Deletionism is tempered by Mergist tendencies, but it is hard to imagine how even a Rdr from JH would be desirable. Still, two of them, or one and some 5th person of the same name could conceivably be shown notable, and then the preservation of this Dab would prove useful.
That being said:

The radio journalist ~~is merely (i.e., without the slightest elaboration) described as a former host, and lk'd, w/o Dab'n (which would have given us a faint reassurance that no one is confusing the rocker with him) from~~ has several mentions and a 3-sent graph in a list, and appears in a two-column tabular cast list on The Rock-afire Explosion, about (i shit you not!) "an animatronic robot band that played in Showbiz Pizza Place restaurants" for a decade.
The bush-league ballplayer is mentioned for being in a college exhib game that got someone else drafted to MLB.
The musician is in a two-column tabular list 38 former members of one band (of whom apparently 3 have articles) and as 1/3 of the subject of a single sentence (abt a band that i admit having at least heard of) whose predicate is "alternated on bass during [1986-92]".
The actor has 9 IMDb credits over 1990-98, and the Dab'er either found him mentioned only on the article for his earliest film, or considered it the most notable mention in WP, despite his role in it being listed 4th in one of the two casts of that film, and being "Policeman" in a cast that included 7 named characters.

Nevertheless, i'm cleaning up the Dab and establishing rd-lks to it from those places, and who knows what tomorrow may bring.
My bad: i assumed i'd read thru the first of the lk'd articles i opened, tho i'd just located the first lame ref to the name, and went on to deny the existence of the most substantial relevant portion.
--Jerzy•t 18:46& 19:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I felt obliged to make the above correction, and i always put the new text in bold when i modify my talk contribs. It occurs to me that making a correction, or bolding it might suggest to someone that i disavow the general thrust of the contrib. In fact, i may have underemphasized the fact that only the bio of the major lg player tries to lk to any of these potential articles, and that bio does not suggest that they ever spoke before the draft nor even saw each other after.
I'm only back bcz i asked myself why this is still lying around, and only am adding further to this talk page bcz my basic sentiment abt the accompanying Dab is the same as it was before i realized the ethical need for hedging what i first said.
--Jerzy•t 03:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weird piping of blue second links

I know some Dab-CU colleagues hate the kind of blue lks i created here. I consider them mandatory per principle of least astonishment. There is a 2nd lk solely bcz the "proper" lk is a rd-lk, and these are rare enuf that only Dab-CUers appreciate why we include them: users are likely to assume we're just being generous (like most creators of their first Dab pages) in providing lots of info. Making the lk terse betrays the user by misleading them about what to expect at the lk'd page; making it verbose not only makes it clear that we intended to dump them into the middle of the blue-lk'd article, but make it explicit how tangential the place we're dumping them is to what they were really looking for.
I'm not going to campaign for fixing MoSDab to recommend or tolerate this technique (i'm a detail guy, and i CU Dabs bcz i get lost in trying to tackle the policy debates, but in that one small place, the guidelines are just plain broken.
--Jerzy•t 19:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, i notice there are recent changes to the piping section, so i may just have made a fool of myself (as usual). I'll offer for now tentative apologies to all colleagues who participated, and take some time to get my head around the changes.
--Jerzy•t 16:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]