Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hugh Burrill


 * 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 per the discussion below. It should be treated case by case and some of the personalities have varying rates of notability particularly the anchors and those who are more known.-- JForget 01:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Hugh Burrill

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notability TV personality; Wikipedia is not a repository for these. Rufus843 (talk) 23:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason (all citytv staff): :   :    :    :    :    :    :    :    :    :    :    :    :    :    :    :    :    :    :    :    :    :    :    :


 * Keep all or vote separately if necessary. Wikipedia is a repository of information about many topics, including public persons. Fg2 (talk) 00:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: These should not be bundled -- a random sampling shows some have definite claims to notability, including careers outside of the TV job, and others don't. They need to be considered and voted on separately. —Quasirandom (talk) 03:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep all, as per reasoning stated by Fg2 and Quasirandom. Some of these articles may be deletable as non-notable, but others are definitely notable. Tabercil (talk) 04:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep All as per above reasons. Manning (talk) 12:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Automatic Keep all as improper bundling. If the nominator feels these individuals are all NN, they need to be nominated separately. I agree most of these are probably NN enough to be deleted, however if even one satisfies notability, then it renders the bundling invalid. 23skidoo (talk) 15:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep all" I'd support a speedy/SNOW close,  so they can be listed properly.DGG''' (talk) 09:43, 9 December 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.