Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charlie Pellett

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 keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:55, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Pellett

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

WP:BLP of a radio personality and public transit announcer voice, not properly sourced as having any strong notability claim. As always, people are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they have jobs, and have to be reliably sourced as the subject of coverage and analysis about their work to independently validate its significance -- but this essentially just states that he's had jobs, and is referenced solely to his staff profile on the self-published website of his own employer, which is not a notability-building source as it doesn't represent independent attention being paid to his work by people without a vested interest in it. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be the subject of coverage in sources other than his own paycheque provider. Bearcat (talk) 13:06, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Radio, and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 13:06, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Just no. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:03, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you wanted an actual, you know, rationale, 'Stand clear of the doors please' is really, really not the stuff of WP:GNG. As a Bloomberg anchor, there is no presumed notability and none in RS presented (or evident with a BEFORE) regarding the subject. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:03, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Epicgenius, siro and Oaktree b are wise. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:06, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure about that (that it's not the stuff of GNG)? I remember a big fuss being made in the media a few years ago when the person who voiced the "mind the gap" message on the London Underground retired or died or something. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:46, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to New Technology Train. I conducted a BEFORE search and only found a few sources about him. They all seem to be related to his announcements for New York City Transit, which are already covered in the NTT article. Besides that, Pellett unfortunately has no standalone notability. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:41, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect seems ok to me Oaktree b (talk) 19:44, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Redirect to New Technology Train#Recorded announcements seems best for the encyclopedia. —siro χ o 19:59, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the many reliable sources starting with this one. NYC Guru (talk) 01:44, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That source actually talks primarily about a different announcer, Bernie Wagenblast. As far as I can see, the source only mentions Pellett once, so it isn't significant coverage of him. Epicgenius (talk) 15:52, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not seeing any policy-based rationale for deletion here, and nom doesn't seem to have done even a perfunctory WP:BEFORE. We have at least the following: 106 words (excluding quote) in The New Yorker, approximately 300 words (excluding quotes from subject) in The New York Post ("no consensus" on RSP), over 1000 words with significant biographical content in Straus News, 107 words on Vox (not independent of New Yorker piece). I would also note substantial portions of this 4-minute news clip (I think this might have been what NYC Guru meant to link to above?) from NBC New York, which is probably not GNG material but certainly helps to show that the article subject is WP:WELLKNOWN for BLP purposes. I would assume there are more as that's just when I got tired of searching. This seems to meet the GNG threshold of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, where "significant coverage" requires that no original research is needed to extract the content. And while these sources mostly aren't optimal for article-building, there are plenty of non-independent sources to fill in non-controversial biographical information. -- Visviva (talk) 02:18, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For the NY Post, its RSP entry states that there is consensus that the New York Post is generally unreliable for factual reporting especially with regard to politics..., but it excepts sports reporting. My reading is that in this case, as it's neither politics or sports reporting, it is still generally unreliable. Hence, unless I am missing something, I'm not sure where you got that there's "no consensus" on RSP. (However, I have no strong opinion on the NY Press source and am not making a !vote now.) Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 04:49, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:BIO with sources presented above. They're reliable and in-depth enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 01:53, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:22, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still caught between Redirect and Keep.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:26, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't think the sourcing is there to support this WP:BLP - the New Yorker coverage isn't really significant and the best feature story is a neighbourhood newspaper. SportingFlyer T·C 19:53, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've updated my above !vote from just redirect to keep or redirect. I'm fine with either option. —siro χ o 20:05, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Besides the reliable print sources that have been added in the past week (which are enough right there), there are also a number of media occurrences, including video clips from Conan O’Brien and The New Yorker.LingLass (talk) 23:20, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 19:19, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The justification to delete speaks about the article being sourced only to something written by his employer. But searches indicate there is news reporting about his voice work, which is described as one of the most famous voices in New York. Independent reporting about his work is what the nominator said was needed. I think arguably, he meets WP:CREATIVE criterion 4c, but less arguably the justification to delete is incorrect, a searches as per WP:BEFORE identify more sources than are discussed in the nomination.

CT55555(talk) 02:28, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because the subject meets WP:Notability. Let's analyze these three sources and see if they meet the GNG. Here is a source assessment table:

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table: prepared by User:IAmHuitzilopochtli
New Yorker	Independent media.	New Yorker meets journalistic standards	Enough to be significant.	✔ Yes
ABC	Independent media.	ABC meets journalistic standards	Enough to be significant.	✔ Yes
CBS	Independent media.	CBS meets journalistic standards	Enough to be significant.	✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

IAmHuitzilopochtli (talk) 20:17, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Sure, we said "last relist" once already, but that was before new sources were unexpectedly presented.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 03:55, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I don't think the CBS source has significant coverage as a passing mention, but I agree that the other two sources count toward GNG. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 12:24, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Significant for sure. IAmHuitzilopochtli (talk) 00:06, 13 August 2023 (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.