Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KHOU-TV News Team
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 delete. Sr13 03:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- KHOU-TV News Team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Again, these pages violate WP:CRUFT and runs afoul of WP:NN. User:B49, and an unregistered IP address (User:68.237.111.217) he/she may be using to make similar edits, created this page and three other similar pages that are also up for AfD. Rollosmokes 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It works well as a finding source for articles on the newscasters, especially the large market ones. There are also good biographies at the stations websites. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 21:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Kepp. Informative. Cruft is merely an essay. --Nricardo 21:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment and WP:USEFUL is not a reason for keeping. EliminatorJR Talk 22:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Wikipedia is not a directory. Not enough bluelinks to make this even a worthwhile list. At the very least, Merge back into parent article. EliminatorJR Talk 22:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - like the other News Team articles nominated for deletion, this page duplicates (exactly, I believe) information already on the main KHOU-TV page. Another editor suggested they be placed on sub-pages, but that can be decided later for main KHOU-TV article. Also, most of the names listed are non-notable. Lipsticked Pig 22:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- To be fair, they're duplicated because the nominator reverted the original pages. That doesn't make the stand-alone articles any more notable, though. EliminatorJR Talk 22:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- My bad, thanks for pointing that out. Rollosmokes, my suggestion would be to hold off any more nominations of these types of pages until some consensus develops on the ones already nominated, since they all are pretty much the same situation, and we are ending up with a fractured discussion. Just MHO. Lipsticked Pig 22:31, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Point taken. Rollosmokes 22:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- My bad, thanks for pointing that out. Rollosmokes, my suggestion would be to hold off any more nominations of these types of pages until some consensus develops on the ones already nominated, since they all are pretty much the same situation, and we are ending up with a fractured discussion. Just MHO. Lipsticked Pig 22:31, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- To be fair, they're duplicated because the nominator reverted the original pages. That doesn't make the stand-alone articles any more notable, though. EliminatorJR Talk 22:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Very much agree with User:EliminatorJR. --Javit 22:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above.--Svetovid 22:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I agree with EliminatorJR. Not enough blue links, and not notable since it is not a encylopedia article. Hirohisat 22:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Doesn't contain anything notable not already on the channel's page. A1octopus 17:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete nn Mukadderat 15:38, 7 June 2007 (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.