Jump to content

Talk:Ted Williams (media personality)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Delete

[edit]

Sorry guys, don't mean to be a wet blanket, the guy's story is remarkable but I am not sure about the notability of the article as part of an encyclopedia...maybe we should add this to another article? List of viral videos, etc? Let me know, for now I am just adding a deletion template. Thanks --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 02:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with many of your points, but adding a deletion template may not necessarily be the answer. Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Alternatives to deletion might provide a better explanation than I can offer. -- 68.97.117.233 (talk) 03:15, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Guys please don't delete the deletion template. Thanks --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 03:28, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that if the AfD discussion is closed, then it is OK to remove the template from the article. I saw that the AfD discussion was closed and removed the template code. Why should it be left there if there is no ability to discuss it? Again, I would prefer that editors use the processes recommended by Wikipedia, as I have indicated in my comment above, Camilo, you didn't, and whoever closed the AfD *ALSO* didn't. So how about we use the consensus/discussion approach here in the Talk page first, rather than just jumping hastily into things? -- 68.97.117.233 (talk) 06:32, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, an admin is supposed to remove the template:"...for KEEP: Remove the AFD Header from the article (be sure the AFD Category is also removed)..." Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:51, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. But I wish people would stop putting articles up for deletion so frivolously. I described an issue with the Doral Chenoweth article (he's the guy who videoed Ted on the highway), and another person saw it and took action to *move* the Doral article into this one. I didn't have to recommend deletion. I simply gave a set of logical reasons here in the Talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.97.117.233 (talk) 15:15, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wholly believe this article needs to be deleted, as this idiot isn't being talked about by normal people, just the shows like Inside Edition and Entertainment Tonight. And by look of their low ratings, it seems to me that most of the nation doesn't care. Also, this guy will be forgotten in two weeks (or so), and doesn't deserve an article in an encyclopedia. Otherwise, you better give me an article as well. 68.96.214.115 (talk) 22:45, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not other articles about similar people might or might not currently exist is not a relevant arguement. What matters is whether this individual has recieved significant coverage in reliable third party sources. The article recently went through our deletion process and was found to have individually met the guidelines. Active Banana (bananaphone 23:33, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion renomination

[edit]

Would it be wise to re nominate this article for deletion? I think most people that said "keep" might have been a little biased by the heat of the story in the news. --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 03:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's still at 40,000 hits a day, and thus is useful. I suggest giving it a week or so. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:57, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you really do think that way, then you'll need to do to Wikipedia:Deletion review, rather than trying to AfD again since those nominations are likely to be speedy kept even quicker than the original nomination was, owing to a lack of time in between nominations. Although I really don't see why you'd want to get rid of it, an article like this could probably easily get a spot in WP:ITN. TheChrisD Rants•Edits 04:01, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why in the world was the AfD closed so quickly? I saw this guy on TV this morning and went looking for this page figuring that someone had already written an article about him and an AfD would have already been issued. I had no idea that the AfD would have been closed already! That Jet Blue guy, Steven Slater, got about 10 times more press than this guy but that article got deleted as a one-time event. No idea how this guy is any more notable than Slater. This guy will be largely forgotten in a week, while there will be jokes made about Slater for years. 76.99.122.143 (talk) 14:56, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this article should be deleted. This guy is more than just a one-hit wonder. Considering that he is getting hired by the Cleveland Cavaliers to do voice-over work and he has several high-profile advertising gigs in the works, he is certainly someone who is getting more than fifteen minutes of fame. Unless, of course, you want to delete all sports announcers and voice-over artists from Wikipedia as being irrelevant.152.133.13.2 (talk) 18:32, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Although the hype currently surrounding him ultimately won't last (nor should it), if he's getting/accepting these legitimate offers, then by the time that dies down, he'll certainly be notable enough for his work. --Tim Parenti (talk) 22:59, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But many locally known people aren't deemed notable enough for Wikipedia. This guy will surely be forgotten in a couple years even if his voice is still used in commercials. As an example, I'm from Philadelphia and the Sixers have a guy named Matt Cord who's been their public address announcer since the early 90s. He does voiceovers too and is a radio DJ for WMMR. So it seems reasonable to compare him to Ted Williams. But Matt Cord has not been deemed notable enough to get his own Wikipedia page. 76.99.122.143 (talk) 01:03, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree this should be deleted. This idiot isn't worthy of an article, or you might as well write an article for the guy who bags my groceries at Smith's. 68.96.214.115 (talk) 22:47, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Time to re-evaluate notability.

[edit]

With his return to drugs and recent unemployment does this man deserve to retain a biographical article for his 2-3 weeks of fleeting fame? Is it going to be worth having an article on him 5 years down the road? 207.118.164.110 (talk) 21:35, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The last AFD was a few weeks ago and ended in Keep. Let it be. Also, Notability is not temporary. WP:NTEMP Dream Focus 21:43, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not our job to decide his worth. Other people have already done that by writing extensive sources about him. All we do is regurgitate, in our own words, what others have already written. --Jayron32 21:45, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that Dream Focus and Jayron32 are quite right. The article seems here to stay. WP:GNG does allow for exceptions under WP:NOT, which might have been good grounds for deletion. But, it AfD was voted "keep" so hastily.
I guess this case can be cited next time this sort of thing happens. I guess Ted Williams (voice-over artist) has found a home after all...and a bit of a legacy to boot. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:20, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is the case that notability is permanent, but there wasn't time to discuss whether the coverage really was appropriate or just populist yellow journalism. I think that any unbiased editor could read through Wikipedia:Notability_(events) (noting in particular the duration of coverage section) and come up with arguments for and against the subject's notability. It should be discussed. Wenttomowameadow (talk) 18:49, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article should be deleted, as this person is totally off the radar. Go around and ask people, and they'll tell you "the baseball player", so that's solid enough. Because, otherwise, I NEED an article, as I was featured numerous times in my high school's newsletter and in the Pahrump, NV, TV stations and newspapers there, and I have a podcast. Ooh! This "flavor of the month" is now stale, and perhaps a general article of people with brief "fame", or forced fame, actually, should be created. You can include the boy band 3 Below in it as well! (Their claim to "fame" is being featured as "hosts" on Fox Family for some movie premiere that channel aired in 1998, and being featured in the promo commercials leading up to the non-event "event".)Apple8800 (talk) 11:53, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apple8800, if you have concerns about this article's notability, then perhaps you could give the article a nomination into Wikipedia:Articles for deletion? Shearonink (talk) 14:54, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It should probably be discussed before another nomination, given the result and fuss from last time. Wenttomowameadow (talk) 15:25, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, posted hastily and was unaware of 'the fuss last time', do know these things can get quite heated. Was just trying to make the comment that Apple8800 seems to feel quite strongly that "the article should be deleted". (Btw, '3 Below' seems to have little to no mentions in any reliable sources, so according to Wikipedia guidelines they wouldn't qualify to have an article. On the other hand, Mr. Williams - as 'Ted Williams' + 'radio' + 'voice' - gets 700,000+ hits on Google so as a subject would seem to have been covered by enough reliable sources to engender notability.)
Speaking to User: 207.118.164.110's statement that "With his return to drugs and recent unemployment does this man deserve to retain a biographical article for his 2-3 weeks of fleeting fame...?" If Mr. Williams hadn't 'fallen off the wagon' and instead had stayed sober, if he was known to have gotten fortune to go along with his recent fame (in some spectacular Movie-of-the-Week fashion), *then* would he somehow deserve WIkipedia retaining his BLP article? Shearonink (talk) 16:26, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article subject received enough coverage, plus follow-up coverage a couple of months that it apparently was not a case of a person notable for only one event. Thus the guy seems notable per WP:N. Even if he proves out to be a flash in the pan the article will likely remain per Notability is not temporary. I see that he's gotten coverage as recently as April 13, 2011. While I suspect that coverage came via self promotion than genuine independent coverage the TV station apparently felt he was notable or interesting enough to do a segment about him. What's not clear is if the segment ever aired or if they only filed something on their web site. --Marc Kupper|talk 19:47, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

January 12, 2011 police incident

[edit]

I don't have time to follow up on this and to add it to the article an a WP:NPOV way as apparently Williams' and a daughter were "taken to a police station" (perhaps not voluntarily), there was a "booking" (which I assume includes getting your mug shot taken), but no "arrest" in a legal sense though some, including Williams himself say he was "arrested." Apparently no charges were filed meaning no court appearance.

  • [1] "Ted Williams, ..., said he was arrested on Monday night after his daughter hit him at a Los Angeles hotel." and "Family members told Dr. Phil the recovering addict's sudden celebrity thrust him back into substance abuse, which led to a physical altercation with his daughter that landed them in the hands of the Los Angeles Police Department." The article does not seem to have a direct quote and so I don't know if Williams said "I was arrested."
  • [2] "Williams, 53, and one of his daughters were detained by police on Monday after a family quarrel, Williams told NBC News. Members of Williams’ family had reunited in Los Angeles for the first time in years for the “Dr. Phil” appearance." and "The pair weren't arrested and no charges were filed. Both were released shortly afterward."
  • [3] "Officers took 2 people back to Hollywood Station for further questioning. Those individuals were later released. There was booking, no arrest, no charges filed."

Maybe we can call it a detention and booking but there was no arrest nor were charges filed against Williams nor his daughter? Another article I chanced across said the dispute was about money. --Marc Kupper|talk 20:47, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong year

[edit]

I'm not 100% sure about this, but I think that somebody might have accidentally said that the year in which Mr. Williams went on the wrong path is 1996 instead of 1986. I think that is because later it is said that he was imprisoned in 1990 and on an Associated Press You-Tube video it was said that he hasn't seen his mother since the 1980's (/watch?v=1LVU0sbdSyY&feature=related).--Tomvasseur (talk) 16:31, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Homeless again?

[edit]

Just saw a YouTube short (@AndyJIang "This Homeless Guy’s Voice Broke The Internet #shorts") that stated Williams was homeless again "because of predatory management and trouble handling his fame" 220 of ßorg 01:53, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ted_Williams_(media_personality)&oldid=1250091984"