Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jon Bentley (TV presenter)


 * 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.  A r k y a n  &#149; (talk) 22:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Jon Bentley (TV presenter)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Article could be classed as being pointless and unencyclopedic, i.e. the same as Top Gear Dog. It's not really relevent to the Top Gear article and adds nothing to the Wiki Project. It is also unsourced, and even if it was, would still add nothing to the subject. It is a very minor part which Bentley had with regards to Top Gear. Davesmith33 14:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Article has been nominated for deletion merely as an attempt to causeWP:DISRUPT - see the page history for details.  DrFrench 14:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Endorse the Article is pointless and unencyclopedic, it is no longer relevent to the Top Gear article and adds nothing to the Wiki Project. It is also unsourced.  DrFrench also has some sort of agenda here in that he/she is constantly undoing other people's edits without first discussing them on the talk page.  See their history to see that they have already been temporarily banned in the past for such actions.  The reasons for the proposed deletion are clearly displayed above. Davesmith33 14:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, it is a notable person. --  rxnd  ( t  |  &#8364;  |  c  ) 15:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * "it is a notable person" - In what way? The article is not sourced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davesmith33 (talk • contribs) 11:28, March 30, 2007

Here, Here Guy. There is no way this is anything other than WP:FAN Davesmith33 17:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Sources, please? Right now this looks eminently deletable.  Guy (Help!) 16:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

There may have been an odd reference added to the article now, but they are pityful to say the least and aren't exactly adding anything to the article. Davesmith33 21:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I was leaning towards keep, mainly because I actually recognized the name and consider this article to have some potential for improvement (as opposed to, say, the TGD article) but after doing some Googling, I'm rather undecided. Based on this AfD's nom and the editing history of the article in question, I'm thinking weak delete  unless somebody familiar with Mr. Bentley's work steps up to do some major cleanup keep. -- Seed 2.0 22:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, when you compare the quality of this article to say, for example, the Top Gear Dog one, the difference is vast and TGD was deleted for the quality of the article!!!!! Davesmith33 09:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comparing an article's quality to another article's is not a valid AfD criterion. Articles are judged on their own merits. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 10:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment. The lack of sources has now been addressed. 100% of it is sourced with reliable sources (well, assuming you take imdb as a reliable source, but that line is backed up with a second source anyway).--PS2pcGAMER (talk) 11:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Consider my vote changed to keep (see above). -- Seed 2.0 12:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Strong Keep - Presenter of two terrestrial TV programmes, and producer of a former TV show. He therefore easily meets the criteria "appeared in well-known films, stage plays, television, and other productions." from WP:N AlexJ 15:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

As the main source of the problem with this article has now been cleared up, I agree the deletion is no longer necessary. (Attn: DrFrench, that wasn't too difficult, was it?) Davesmith33 15:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Do try and keep it WP:CIVIL Dave, and stop the WP:DISRUPT editing of all the articles related to Top Gear.  You've just come back for a 24 hour block for it, nobody wants to see you blocked again.  I've posted to your talk page in the past (as have others) that I have no personal gripe with you, but you seem  take this all very personally.  (PS as you were advised yesterday by Waggers, blanking of talk pages is not a 'good thing'.  Just because you delete warnings doesn't mean they don't exist.)  Chill out, reduce your wikistress and try to think of constructive ways you can improve these articles rather than constantly vandalising them. DrFrench 15:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep and suggest closing. The article is now completely sourced.  Notability isn't an issue (producer of widely watch TV show, presenter of two other TV programmes).  To the nominator, next time mark the article as unreferenced, leave a message on the talk page and drop a message at a few of the article's main contributors to request sources.  If no sources are added within a reasonable time frame (a week or so), then consider an AfD.  Creating an AfD first is just extra work when the only complaint is the lack of sources, especially when they were as easy to find as they were for Bentley's article.  If we started creating AfDs for every article that was unsourced, AfD would be flooded with thousands of requests.  --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 01:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

"Creating an AfD first is just extra work" - but a last resort when responding to childish behaviour like that from across the channel. Davesmith33 18:50, 4 April 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.