Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caterina Bandini

From 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 keep, and a caution to User:Chingachinga to review and adhere to our policies on personal attacks and civility. Proto ► 11:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Caterina Bandini

Caterina Bandini (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Incomplete nomination by User:Chingachinga User has been notified to come and lodge a reasoning for deletion. No stance at this time -- saberwyn 20:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep News anchor who has been the primary subject of newspapers articles including [1], passes BIO easily —siroχo 21:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Caterina Bandini is a has-been, an EX news anchor, and a brief fluff piece in the Boston Globe hardly constitites a biographical justification for a Wikipedia article. Her tenure as anchor was mercifully brief (about 5 years), and during that time, despite WHDH's generally high ratings, she was not a popular anchor, as evidenced by numerous postings on local media forums. Note that the Globe has media ties with WHDH.

Somebody please tell me what she did in her entire career as a reporter/anchor that was at all noteworthy, anything at all. Reading a teleprompter five days a week does not count. She is gone and soon forgotten. She won't be back as anchor anywhere in Boston either even if she wants to return - what station would have her? She will be over 40 in a business that worships young and pretty. Her stiff humorless on-air persona was a frequent source of comment among news watchers. She would likely demand more money than any station would be willing to pay. She has no fan base, never did. Her career is done.

If you are going to allow this article to stand, then anybody else who has been an anchor in local news deserves an article as well, and I just can't see that. If any current Boston anchors deserve Wikipedia articles, it would be the likes of Natalie Jacobsen or Jack Williams, who at least have both had very long TV careers in Boston and will no doubt be remembered for some time. But again, does local popularity equate to Wikipedia notability? A decade or less from now, people will be saying "Caterina who?" I have asked some people, and they cannot even name her as the person who preceded the current female anchor. Is that notability?

Given that she seems to be just about the only local Boston anchor or reporter to have an article here, the question naturally arises, who posted this article in the first place? Bandini herself? Possible. Some random TV news groupie that has an infatuation with her? Possible too, but other anchors are far more popular here, so why don't they have articles on Wikipedia. Draw your own conclusions. (Chingachinga 21:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC))

  • Delete, notability --Peta 00:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete None of the articles cited do anything to establish notability. She quite her high profile job to have twins. So? Chingachinga 00:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment If she had a high-profile job - as Chingachinga has just said - that implies notability, no? Regardless, the articles added by myself and User:Siroxo quite clearly show that she passes WP:BIO (and I've never heard of her before tonight, as I live in the UK). EliminatorJR 01:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Let me offer some comparisons. Other things being equal, a national anchor is more notable than a local one. A local anchor with a long career is more notable than one with a brief career. A local anchor with some additional accomplishments, either within or outside their news position, is more notable than one lacking them. I would suggest that a popular local anchor is more notable than a relatively unpopular one because in TV news it's all about ratings and Q scores.

Bandini was a local anchor. Her career as a anchor was quite modest in length, and she has admitted that she is no longer interested in returning to that particular job, so that career will not be extended. To my knowledge she had no genuine additional accomplishments at all, e.g. Pulitzer Prize, best-selling book, etc. Even her supporters have admitted that her public persona needed improvement, as she had something of an 'ice queen' image. Newspaper articles from the 'Lifestyle' sections about her decision to choose family over career are not that substantive and barely add to any claims of notability. I'll wager the frequency of those articles will drop quickly as she fades from public memory.

A high-profile job may imply notability only to the extent that it raises the issue. An undistinguished short career in a local market does not establish notability.

Say what you want, she fails the notability test.

  • Comment to closing admin. This is getting silly. Chingachinga has now voted Delete three times as well as being the nom. Meanwhile, WP:BIO is easily proven. EliminatorJR 17:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment It is my understanding that "votes" are no longer tabulated and used as the sole criterion for deletion, so if EliminatorJR chooses to vote Strong Keep I reserve the right to reaffirm my Delete vote.

What I find silly is that EliminatorJR, who claims to be from the UK and claims to know nothing about Bandini, should take it upon him(her)self to promote Bandini's notability by posting insignificant media articles when he(she) is utterly unfamiliar with Boston TV news, the very context of Bandini's alleged notability. I, on the other hand, have been watching local news for decades, back to the days of Don Kent and Jack Chase among others. It is my opinion that Bandini was a minor figure, that such press as she received was perfunctory, and that she will quickly become less notable over time as her name recognition diminishes.

I also fail to see how WP:BIO establishes Bandini's notability.

With reference to "Primary criterion" - "Person has been a subject of multiple non-trivial published works". Not really. Whenever a new anchor is promoted it is standard fare for local print media reporters to write a brief piece about him or her. It's pretty trivial, usually appearing in the TV or Lifestyle pages. Stories relating to her decision to quit her position to care for her twins are human interest stories, and may be juxtaposed with an opposing position by a feminist critical of women leaving the workplace to raise children. Such articles are relatively trivial, and hardly bolster notability, as any other successful woman, famous or not, would serve the illustrative purpose just as well.

Under "Special cases, notable actor and television personality" - "Multiple features in popular culture publications" - no.

"Large fan base, fan listing, or 'cult' following" - no. To the contrary, Bandini was reportedly relatively unpopular because of her stiff demeanor. The success of WHDH was widely attributed to the glitzy, fast paced look of the news, not to the anchors' celebrity.

"Independent Biography" - no. See the above comments under "Primary criterion".

"Name recognition" - doubtful. Bandini was only known in the Boston area, and was the station's female anchor for only 5 years. Her name recognition will no doubt decline rapidly now that she is off the air, and Frances Rivera has proved a popular, successful replacement for her.

"Commercial endorsements" - no.

Under "Proposed alternative criteria" - "Expandability - will the article ever be more than a stub?" - Almost certainly not, and a brief stub it is at that, despite recent external references. She is out of the news business and has expressed a desire not to return. Her agent may make hyped up claims that a local station would pick her up, but I find that hard to believe.

100 year tests - fails both.

Search engine test - questionable. Google hits are mostly station posts of news stories she covered, and reports of personal appearances anchors are expected to make during their tenure. None of these items bolster notability, and many hits will no doubt be taken down over time as the stories lose their releveance.

So again, I fail to see anything that establishes notability to keep this article. Chingachinga 12:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Somebody needs to read WP:CIVIL. I'm not getting involved in this, obviously the nominator has a major grudge against the subject of the article. Doesn't matter how much they've annoyed him, WP:BIO is proved. EliminatorJR 21:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment EliminatorJR would do well to read WP:CIVIL him(her)self. The disparaging comments made about me are moderately insulting, gratuitous, erroneous, and most damning of all, irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

WP:BIO is not a mathematical theorem to be proved QED, as some matter of universally accepted fact. WP:BIO is only a matter of opinion. As the saying goes, that which is gratuitously asserted may be gratuitously denied. WP:BIO is not proven.

I have a difficult time finding notability in any local anchor lacking other legitimate accomplishments, since for starters any notability hardly extends beyond the local viewing area, which might be rather small in many cases. Other than your own, how many local anchors can you name, excluding those who might have experienced some measure of fame for activities unrelated to their anchor position? None? I myself cannot name any anchors in Providence RI, or Manchester NH, or in any of the other surrounding media markets, never mind the rest of the country. That is not to say that local anchors do not merit an article just because they are local and not nationally recognized, but rather there must be something sufficiently notable about them that might impress others unfamiliar with their careers. Achieving only a very local celebrity as an anchor is not a significant enough accomplishment in my view.

Let me offer some TV newspeople examples as illustrations. Paula Zahn was an anchor in Boston for a while, also at channel 7 where Bandini later worked, but moved on to a national morning talk show, and eventually got her own national cable news program. No problem with a Wikipedia article here: a long and diverse TV news career including national exposure in several programs, and with an ongoing program on CNN. People throughout the country recognize her, and name recognition certainly counts in notability. If her career had ended when it did at channel 7, Zahn would not qualify on notability in my opinion. Too obscure and brief a career.

Chuck Scarborough was also an anchor at channel 7 for a time, but moved on to a very long-term high visibility anchor position at WNBC in New York City. Even though known primarily as a local anchor, I would say he qualifies on notability first, because NY is the largest media market in the country (or maybe a close second behind LA). Perhaps millions of people would recognize him, and he has been an anchor at WNBC for over three decades. That's a substantive career in the public eye in itself. Additionally he has had national network exposure throughout the country, and he has also had several successful books published. That body of accomplishments warrants a Wikipedia article in my opinion. Even the NY local news anchor position alone might qualify, given the market and his tenure. If he had only been a NY anchor for one year and not done the rest, would he qualify? I would be inclined to think not. If his career had ended in Boston with nothing else, definitely not - not enough substance.

I do have some question about Natalie Jacobson's inclusion in Wikipedia, though I would not contest it. She has been at WCVB in Boston for decades and is likely the most recognized TV newsperson in Boston today, and arguably one on the most famous in Boston TV news history. With her then husband Chet Curtis as co-anchor, "Chet and Nat" dominated the local prime-time news ratings until they divorced and he moved on to NECN. Jacobson still lead the ratings as solo anchor in her time slot. My problem with her notability is that she is no doubt completely unknown outside her viewing area, and Boston is not NY or LA, and there is no reason that she should be known elsewhere either. In some sense she is a big fish in a relatively small pond. At some point the market size matters. Have any of you ever heard of her, even if you have a keen interest in American TV news? Does a long-term anchor on Jerkwater Cable Access News lacking other accomplishments qualify?

Another interesting case to consider is WHDH's investigative reporter, Hank Phillippi Ryan. She has been at Bandini's station for some time and covered many stories, but one was a career maker. She reported after a long investigation on a pattern of collusion and corrupt practices involving construction firms promoting remodeling projects to homeowners in some of Boston's poorer neighborhoods, with ties to banks offering dubious loans. The story was significant enough that the state itself investigated and initiated new rules regarding registration of contractors and changes in bank lending practices. Ryan's story was notable for its genuine impact, but would she merit a Wikipedia article? That's a tough one to call.

I cite these examples to illustrate that the criteria for notability for TV journalists are rather vague. Some individuals clearly qualify without discussion - who could doubt, say, Walter Cronkite? Some are iffy, and subject to legitimate debate. Some don't make the cut.

Bandini's career lacks notability. Her Wikipedia article boils down to the first sentence: an 11 year position at WHDH (only the last 5 of which were as anchor). That she co-anchored with Randy Price adds no weight. Boston is neither NY nor LA as a media market. The cited articles recently added are trivial ephemera. Apparently she did nothing of substance outside her anchor chair, e.g. wrote a book of note, held elected office, etc. Bandini fails to make the cut, as would any other local anchor with a brief, uninspired career. In the panoply of local TV news, she did not rise much above that of the general assignment reporter. Unfortunately such is probably the case for the majority of local anchors. Chingachinga 00:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

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.