Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adrian Durham

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was KEEP. Stormie 09:21, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

Adrian Durham
Wikipedia is not a listings magazine. Uncle G 04:20, 2005 Jan 30 (UTC)
 * You appear to have made that one up.Philip 03:15, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * No. It's WP:WIN phrased in terms suitable for this particular article.  If you don't understand the similarities between directories, listings magazines, memorials, and others then you haven't understood WP:WIN. Uncle G 15:37, 2005 Feb 4 (UTC)
 * You think you understand it better than me; I think I understand it better than you. I think I'm right on this article; you think you're right on this article. That's all fair enough. What is not fair enough is that you are prepared to fabricate and misrepresent policy to try to win a vote. Philip 18:22, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Neither is it a resume service. --Woohookitty 08:49, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * He is already one of the main presenters on the UK's main national sports radio station, so I doubt he is looking for a new job, and I'm sure if he'd posted it himself it would have been better written. Philip 03:15, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. He is on national radio, so it's hardly a vanity page, although he's not that famous. Could alternatively be merged into talkSPORT. sjorford// 11:29, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * What it is is an entry from a listings magazine. Stripped of the text telling us what days and times the radio show is on, and who the guests are, there is nothing here apart from the one sentence "Adrian Durham is an English football journalist and broadcaster who hosts shows X, Y, & Z on station W.".  Well there are plenty of them.  What makes this one special enough to warrant an encyclopaedia entry?  Despite the prodding of the  notice (which, I remind you, reads "you are welcome to continue editing this article and improve it, especially if you can address the concerns of those who believe the article should be deleted.") no-one, not even Pcpcpc, has actually addressed that concern at all. This article is an attempt to recolour a red-link at talkSPORT. But until there is actually something of note to say about this person, which it seems there is not given the lack of progression of the article even with enthusiasts present, it should remain a red-link.  Uncle G 15:37, 2005 Feb 4 (UTC)
 * Delete, not notable enough, un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 01:19, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Do not merge as it can't be categorised then. He must be more famous than thousands of people with their own articles. I have tidied it a little and categorised it. Megan, please try to restrain your hostility towards football related articles. Philip 03:04, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Hostility implies I am dead against football, which is not correct. I have either abstained (no vote) on some articles or voted keep on one or two. Wikipedia is not a resume or listing service btw. Despite all that is said and done he is not that famous. Megan1967 05:09, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep The article looks like it's pasted together quickly, but there's nothing wrong with the subject. Junes 00:07, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * There's nothing to be said about the subject, though. The "broadcaster who hosts shows X, Y, & Z on station W" information can be, and almost is already, said on talkSPORT.  You don't even need to read much else on Wikipedia (not even the articles about radio station personalities in other countries, let alone Contributing to Wikipedia which says "When creating new pages, please consider first if there will be enough material for a whole article.") to see why this article, stripped of its listings magazine content, is so dismal.  You only need go as far as the other talkSPORT entries.  Compare this with Ray Houghton, and it is painfully obvious that "Adrian Durham is an English football journalist" is is less than encyclopaedia-worthy.  Red-links should be recoloured properly, or not at all. Uncle G 15:37, 2005 Feb 4 (UTC)
 * I don't know much about him because I don't listen to commercial radio stations because I can't stand adverts, but he's famous enough for me to have heard of him nonetheless. It is destcutive of the ulility of the category system to shove subjects of one type (a person) into an article of a totally different type (a radio station). If something is famous enough that someone might look them up for non-personal reasons, which is certainly the case here, he deserves an article. If you are American, you may not appreciate how prominent national radio presenters are in the UK, where radio is much closer to the status of TV than it is in the US. Philip 02:23, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.