Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom and Jerry (announcers)

Add links
Source: 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 delete. Black Kite (talk) 12:08, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tom and Jerry (announcers)

Tom and Jerry (announcers) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced neologism. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:25, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   I suppose you mean
  1. "the article cites no sources", and
  2. "the topic's title appears to be applied for reasons less formal than those of most articles".
Each of those deserve consideration as requiring editing, but neither, nor the combination of the two, is a ground for deletion.
    It goes without saying that articles tagged as stubs are likely to start without refs, and they can be tagged {{
Lewis and Clark
) -- then perhaps no one (among those who don't recall the surname in question) will ever look for either one's bio by typing "Tom and Jerry", and this article will never serve a purpose.
    We deal with sub-optimum names by proposing better names. Neologisms are usually bad titles for topics, but using a neologism to name a topic does not imply the topic is non-notable. It is sometimes the case that a term has more than lexicographic significance -- Fuck and Nigger are always my examples -- and it is very rare for a mere neologism to be a topic. But where the topic is notable, its having a neologism as its best currently available title is not reason for deletion.
    If you question the suitability of a topic for coverage in WP, that is reason for an AfD discussion; IMO you should in that case let this be closed w/ speedy-keep, and start a new AfD free ifof these red herrings.
--Jerzy•t 08:30, 24 June 2012 (UTC)Belatedly placing, at 05:51, 28 June 2012 (UTC), my omitted sig.Jerzy•t[reply]
  • Delete unless it can be sourced. JIP | Talk 18:49, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 20:05, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 20:05, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 20:05, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 20:05, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
   I wish i could say "Google offers us a million and some likely sources on them", but we can't read more than a thousand without coming up with additional sort keys for each batch of fewer than a thousand. No one has even clearly suggested that Availability of sources is a problem, and in fact it is not.
--Jerzy•t 08:30, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. A neologism is "defined as a newly coined term, word, or phrase, that may be in the process of entering common use, but has not yet been accepted into mainstream language"... seems to meet that definition to me, as the phrase was coined to refer to these two announcers, and is certainly not mainstream. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:27, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a "term, word or phrase". It's their name. Dricherby (talk) 21:37, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not their "name". They each have a different name, and this is a neologism that refers to them. It is similar to
Kruk and Kuip, which was redirected at AfD. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:20, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
   "They each have a different name" is a ridiculous (yes, i do mean laughable) quibble. The members of the Blue Jays each have a different name, but "the Blue Jays" is their collective name. "Tom and Jerry" identifies the same people as "Jerry and Tom" or "Tom Cheek and Jerry Howarth", but only one of those two phrases is the well established name of the team or partnership they had/have. "Jerry and Tom " "blue jays" has "About 665 results" -- and of my first 10 displayed, 3 refer to the cartoon or Simon & Garfunkel, while 2 more have the wording
... Jerry (half of Tom and Jerry, and Tom, I miss you dearly ...)...
in which "Tom and Jerry" appears as a unit, but Google doesn't try to distinguish the accidental juxtapostion "... Jerry, and Tom" from the grammatical unit "Jerry and Tom". Well, i suppose half of the "About 1,130,000 results" from "Tom and Jerry" "blue jays" could be false hits of the same kinds... But in any case a 1700:1 ratio reflects not a neologism, but a well established regional catchphrase, and a name for the pair in the same way that
Elvis and "The King" are names for you-know-who.
--Jerzy•t 08:30, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
   Being "similar" to
Kruk and Kuip (now a Rdr to part of the sports org they work for) is a vague hint at something that influenced you, not an argument. What similarities are you claiming are relevant to this case? What principle do you think was established by that AfD process?
--Jerzy•t 08:30, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Kruk and Kuip are the announcers for the San Francisco Giants. That's their nickname. Tom and Jerry were announcers for the Blue Jays. Nicknames serve as neologisms and aren't notable independent of the subjects themselves. We don't have separate articles for
The Sultan of Swat. Here's the AfD; I think it's our jumping off point, though I wouldn't say it formed a clear consensus in itself. I should've linked it earlier. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:45, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
It's not their nickname: it's their given names. One of them is named Tom, the other Jerry. Dricherby (talk) 17:14, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's the nickname for them as a unit... they also had separate careers... again nothing about this pairing that cant be included in the broadcasters page... this is silly.Spanneraol (talk) 17:46, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There seems to be a huge amount of material that can be used to source this, though most of it's behind the Toronto Star's paywall, so I don't have access. Dricherby (talk) 21:47, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just because sources exist doesn't mean it's notable. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:20, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • A quarter-century of newspaper coverage tends to suggest that something is notable. Dricherby (talk) 23:35, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •    Ah, but existence of sources does pretty much mean that, per
    WP:N#General notability guideline
    :
If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list.
You'll want to read the guideline that that is drawn from; there's significant nuance.
--Jerzy•t 09:39, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The key word, "presumed", means that sourcing is not a guarantee. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:41, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd love to imagine that that is a dead horse, and refrain from beating it further, but i can't in good conscience risk anyone taking that as the last word!
       "Presumed" indeed implies, in the
    notability guideline
    , that sourcing is not a guarantee, and thank you for reading far enuf to copy that fragment. But contrary to what you just insinuated, its meaning is "taken for granted; assumed to be true in the absence of proof to the contrary." That also implies that anyone claiming non-notability must, in the face of sources, provide proof of non-notability. The page we are discussing suggests two powerful approaches you could take to that task:
  1. "WP:NOT" is full of ways of proving non-notability, in spite of adequate sourcing. Do you fail to mention one or two of them bcz none of them apply? (IMO none do.) In that case...
  2. the guideline advises you (i've added emphasis)
    In general, "that is a terrible idea" is always sufficient grounds to avoid doing something, provided there is a good reason that the idea is terrible.
And no one who's paying attention could imagine that what you've said about this aspect, in two successive responses, does anything to further this discussion.
--Jerzy•t 05:51, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    A million Web articles call them "Tom and Jerry", probably in many cases without surnames. (I hadn't read your opinion before raising, above, the issue of users relying on memory, who've forgotten the surnames.)
   You can't literally mean delete -- other sites have copied the article and i think the Dab linking it, and will continue serving the old versions. Or have created links to them. Experienced callers of AfDs routinely adjust accordingly, e.g., replacing the AfD'd article with a Rdr to an article or Dab. Are you arguing for making Tom and Jerry (announcers) into a Rdr to Tom and Jerry (disambiguation), and conversion of the Dab entry
* Tom and Jerry (announcers) (1981-2005), Tom Cheek and Jerry Howarth, for Toronto Blue Jays radio
into the following?
Announcers "Tom and Jerry" for Toronto Blue Jays radio:
* Tom Cheek (1939 - 2005)
* Jerry Howarth (born 1939)
(
MoSDab certainly does not provide for that, and IMO rules it out.)
--Jerzy•t 09:21, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
If a redirect is necessary I'd redirect to the Blue Jays broadcasters list page where this can be explained. Really how is their team different from any other announcing team? Teams are often referred to locally like this but no one outside of Toronto would know this name... I dont see why they need to have a page separate from the other pages I've mentioned. The broadcasters page can easily contain more text on the history of the broadcast teams. Spanneraol (talk) 14:24, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. No valid reason for deletion given, as i note in my response to the nom itself, above.
Tho i had never heard of them, no doubt i added them to the Dab, and wrote the stub, bcz the phrase showed up as such a striking collection of hits in a G-search: see details in my response, above, to the first "Comment".
--Jerzy•t 08:30, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
   I considered changing my opinion to
Keep or ReDo as Rdr to (for now) the secn in either of the bios that already include
For the next 23 years, "Tom and Jerry" would be the radio voice of the Blue Jays.
(And probably the bio for whichever of them is still alive would be the better choice.)
   IMO, the stub i wrote would be likely to be expanded into something too big to be duplicated in both bios, and to call forth that content faster than the alternatives. But actually, my dog in this fight is not the stub, it's the Dab entry at
title they Don't Like. And if they don't pick up on the benefits (and the lack of harm) of having at least a Rdr, know ye that the wheels of WP turn slowly, but they eventually grind exceedingly fine, and it's seldom worth grinding your teeth trying to rush them.
--Jerzy•t 05:51, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Further observations and comments. Having watched the sort of odd back-and-forth of largely unsupported editor comments in the AfD, I decided to spend a little time researching "Tom and Jerry." Here's what I found:
(1) The principal advocate for keeping this article, Jerzy, is responsible for about 85 yo 90% of its present content.
(2) The article consists of four sentences, all unreferenced in contravention of
WP:RS
.
(3) The material within the article duplicates that included in the separate bios of Tom Cheek and Jerry Howarth.
(4) A Google search ("Tom and Jerry Toronto Blue Jays") reveals only incidental mentions of the broadcasting duo, varying from routine to trivial. There is no substantial, in-depth coverage of "Tom and Jerry" as a "paired act" in independent, reliable sources as required by
WP:GNG
in order to establish notability for Wikipedia purposes. This is not a "Burns and Allen"/"George and Gracie" situation where Cheek and Howarth were widely and commonly known by a paired nickname. Gracie Allen died almost 50 years ago, and "George and Gracie" is still a cultural icon. While it is clearly unfair to compare them to Burns and Allen, I seriously doubt that the vast majority of long-time Toronto residents think of Cheek and Howarth when they hear "Tom and Jerry" before they think of a certain cartoon mouse and cat.
(5) Minor point—neither the Tom Cheek article nor the Jerry Howarth bio even mention the "Tom and Jerry" pairing in their lead sections. Not exactly conclusive evidence, I know, but it does provide some idea of the prominence given to the "Tom and Jerry" nickname by other editors who have worked on the Tom Cheek and Jerry Howarth bios.
(6) That being said, there are excellent reasons other than notability not to include a separate article under this name in Wikipedia. Arguments have been advanced in this AfD that readers searching for the pair would not be able to find them on Wikipedia in the absence of this stump of an article. Well, the reader viewing stats don't bear that out. For the month of May 2012, hear are the article hits:
Tom Cheek: 1,250 total page views (or a daily average of 40 hits) May 2012 stats;
Jerry Howarth: 762 total page views (or a daily average of 24.5 hits) May 2012 stats;
Tom and Jerry (disambiguation): 1,300 total page views (or a daily average of 41.9 hits) May 2012 stats; and
Tom and Jerry (announcers): 94 total page views (or a daily average of 3 hits) May 2012 stats.
Based on the evidence of the actual article page views, it would appear that Wikipedia readers who want to read about Tom Cheek and Jerry Howarth are finding their bios without any problem; it's the "Tom and Jerry" article that appears to be difficult to find and/or largely unread, with or without help from the disambiguation page.
(7) I have modified the entry on the Tom and Jerry (disambiguation) page to link directly to the separate Tom Cheek and Jerry Howarth articles.
In light of these observations, I see absolutely no reason why this article serves any purpose other than to duplicate content already set forth at greater length and greater depth in the separate Tom Cheek and Jerry Howarth articles. I stand by my earlier !vote to delete. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:43, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I think the key point that should be looked at is whether the broadcast team of Tom Cheek and Jerry Howarth collectively known as Tom and Jerry have significant coverage in reliable sources. This is distinct from just referring to the two of them together by the nickname. I haven't looked for such sourcing so I won't weigh in with an opinion yet. -- Whpq (talk) 14:56, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - After looking for sources to establish the two together as a notable team of announcers, it does not look like the coverage is there. This article behind a pay wall is promising, but it is unclear whether the article is really more about the Blue Jays broadcasting network. -- Whpq (talk) 21:27, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can't see through the paywall, either, but note that it's perfectly possible for an article that's mostly about topic X to include substantial coverage of related topic Y. Dricherby (talk) 08:58, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no assertion of importance
    Gardevoir (used EDIT!) 01:40, 1 July 2012 (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/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tom_and_Jerry_(announcers)&oldid=1097830496"