Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ted Kendall (3rd nomination)

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. Happy to restore the article to user or draft space if someone wants to merge part of it elsewhere. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 05:26, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Kendall

[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)

Non-notable musical engineer who appears to be a living person. Article has been tagged as not having enough citations since 2008 and has been tagged for being advertorial since 2014. Even if he were notable, it would need WP:TNT. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:27, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:38, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:38, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:13, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Merge (updated, please see below). MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:55, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have stubbified the article to remove all the directly unsourced content since this is a BLP. It is not naturally contentious but I err on the side of caution in BLPs. I am noting this just for the sake of the AfD so people know that it had more content originally. Sennecaster (Chat) 13:57, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:40, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per criteria 1 of WP:CREATIVE. Google books gets some pretty good coverage of him, including The Penguin Jazz Guide, Living Blues, Jazz Journal International, The Cambridge Companion to Recorded Music, Fats Waller on the Air: The Radio Broadcasts and Discography, Playback: The Bulletin of the National Sound Archive, and Hi-fi News & Record Review. Was a WP:BEFORE done?4meter4 (talk) 20:44, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. 4meter4's sources are not convincing.
- #1 little more than mentions, not in-depth coverage
- #2 Passing mention - just a name drop
- #3 Passing mention
- #4 is an article written by Kendall, doesn't count to notability
- #5 Passing mention

SpinningSpark 22:53, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A third relist in hopes of generating some further discussion on the heels of 4meter4's sources
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:45, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep probably not a WP:BEFORE - the nomination does not really articulate a valid WP:DEL-REASON. Kind of lackadaisical to say, "it has been tagged, and probably needs TNT". 4meter4 has presented RSs, and Spinning Spark has dismissed the RSs. Having written a few artist bios, I can tell you that many small things make the big thing. Sometimes a preponderance of the evidence is needed. Checking the first AfD a participant said: "Keep. Superficially investigated, rash call on my part. A leader in his field it seems, and globally known. Unlikely case of COI. Terrible article though."

"And the second AfD: "Nomination withdrawn I missed the 2007 discussion, my error. Boleyn." Now we have a third AfD? Perhaps after 13 years...one of us should fix it instead of nominating it. Lightburst (talk) 19:58, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lightburst

Comment https://www.bl.uk/britishlibrary/~/media/subjects%20images/sound/analoguesoundrestoration.pdf is a document from the British Library, shows that they started using this guy's "mousetrap" for Analogue Sound Restoration. His official website talks about it so its the same guy. http://www.tedkendall.com/mousetrap.php Anyway, his official website has a contact information, so I'll contact him and see if he has been interviewed anywhere, or had reviews done of anything he created or restored. Dream Focus 21:13, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am having some grief opening it, but will check it out when the Ghosts in the machine stop. Lightburst (talk) 21:56, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Essentially that's all it says. Just a passing mention of Kendall. SpinningSpark 22:22, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Working on it - seems like an authority in his field. It is a passing mention of an important device that he manufactures. Lightburst (talk) 22:36, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Spinningspark: Finding non-trivial items like this book section he wrote. Lightburst (talk) 23:09, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the link above. There is more but I will wait to see if others think we will keep. He has an extensive discography and using his name with the term "remastering" brings more. Lightburst (talk) 01:02, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Creative's first two things seem to have been met. 1.The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors; 2. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique;. So meeting either of those proves notability in the subject specific guideline for people like this. His "Mousetrap" revolutionized the industry, replacing "The Packburn" everyone was using before. Dream Focus 04:41, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would be convinced by that if there was a source actually saying he was important, but there is not. The British Library document says they used his device in a passing mention and that it was an improvement over what they used before, but that is a long way from saying it is a "significant new concept, or technique". Reading his own description of his device, it seems he put together several already existing techniques in one convenient device. That hardly seems revolutionary; but tif users' might find it so, evidence of that is needed. SpinningSpark 06:37, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Spinningspark definately. The device is not what drew praise for him. His remastering techniques - apparently widely called an expert for taking old poorly recored 78 records from turn of early 20th century performers. I could have changed the lead to mention he is an expert based on the many references that say just that. But I wanted to be careful because there are so many mentions in old Jazz fansites, and blogs. He is called a virtuoso in at least one book, and his work draws praise in many more. Lightburst (talk) 16:15, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Lightburst: It would help if you linked to, or named and quoted from, the reliable sources you think support this. I'm not going to change my position on the basis of vague assertions. SpinningSpark 17:00, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- - @Spinningspark: I put several in the article, but I am gong to edit in other areas until I see if other editors agree. I think if you search his company JSP or remastering you will find he is the expert. Here is just one calling him a [[Virtuoso]]. Lightburst (talk) 17:54, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BASIC and sourcing doesn't show that any part of WP:CREATIVE is satisfied either. The recent passing mentions added to the page still don't meet those criteria Mztourist (talk) 08:26, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - failed WP:GNG before the recent additions, and still does. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:23, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:onel5969 When many of these passing mentions call him names such as "virtuoso", or refer to his "expert remastering" or he contributes pages to a book about his expertise and methods in the transfer from analog to digital - don't we have a preponderance? I did bring forth sources that were more than passing and two previous AfDs recognized that he was notable. I understand that 2005 was the wild west on WP, but the fact that everyone did a driveby on the article for 16 years just saying yeah its notable, without cleanup is wrong. At least now we have an article that can be properly assessed. There is more information out there with different search terms but I will move on unless there is some agreement that he is a notable expert in his field. Lightburst (talk) 14:20, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fails WP:GNG with none of the sources providing WP:SIGCOV. References to Kendall in reliable sources are just passing - despite what qualifying adjectives they give. His Mousetrap software struggles even more with sourcing so I'm not buying that argument. I am tempted to purchase his Roland Kirk CDs now to see how they compare to my battered LPs but I just don't see the notability. Vladimir.copic (talk) 02:12, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In full agreement with Spinningspark and Vladimir.copic: fails WP:SIGCOV due to passing mentions and it can't pass WP:CREATIVE without in-depth peer backing or in-depth RS backing. One adjective won't cut it. Pilaz (talk) 19:36, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Audio restoration. While Ted Kendall has done some prominent things, such as cleaning up old 78rpm records and restoring parts of the Goons Show and Dr Who audio, a lot of his achievements are in the pre-internet era and consequently it's difficult to find significant coverage to improve the article (most things I looked at are in the article already). I think the best thing to do is to put his achievements in a general article about what he does, where only having spot-checks in sources is less of an issue. The article I mentioned already namechecks several people anyway. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:57, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As has been said above, coverage is limited to brief mentions and isolated qualifiers and adjectives. His awards also lack independent sourcing, not conferring notability. Avilich (talk) 18:45, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Audio restoration, as per Ritchie333. MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:34, 6 November 2021 (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.