Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CNBC anchors who have never held even a moderately high position in the financial field


 * 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 Speedy delete by User:Tango. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 21:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

CNBC anchors who have never held even a moderately high position in the financial field

 * — (View AfD)

Can you say, POV fork? And not even one that could be developed. This information, if sources are available, should be incorporated into the CNBC article, but nothing more. --  Merope  20:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom, this is asking for POV forks Arnoutf 20:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * (comment copied from article) This article should not be deleted, as it is not a debate. The fact that these people have not had jobs on Wall Street is fact, not opinion. Anyone who suggests this article be deleted is clearly working for CNBC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neiondeion (talk • contribs) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Merope (talk • contribs) 20:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC).
 * Delete per nom. Cool title though, I think it could be longer though.  Budgiekiller 20:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, despite the author's very persuasive arguments. Original research and pov. Hey, does this mean I work for CNBC now? $weet! Kafziel Talk 20:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete This is completely pointless.-- C  J   King  21:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete This is nuttier than all get out. Mr Christopher 21:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete attack page with no good version to revert to. Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 21:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. If the anchors concerned have never even held a moderately high position in the financial field, then those issues should be confirmed by a reliable source and mentioned in the individual articles on those anchors.  Even at that, mentions of the anchors' job history should only be added if relevant -- i.e. a well-placed critic determines a bias or errors in reporting by an anchor who isn't experienced.  What's next?  CNBC anchors who have used a moderately powerful tractor to plow a soybean field?  --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 21:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Baleete. The fact that this survived for more than 2 minutes shocks me. ~ Flameviper 21:31, 10 January 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.