Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of BloggingHeads.tv contributors


 * 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 No consensus to delete -- JForget 00:20, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

List of BloggingHeads.tv contributors

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Article fails WP:NOT. most have their own article, as does BloggingHeads.tv. Hu12 05:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - List is of contributors to a specific program, so whether they have articles of their own is irrelevant. (the purpose is not to illustrate the individuals, but for a collective list of those who have appeared on the video blog) Furthermore, the article does not fail WP:NOT, there are many references provided for notability, and information is better displayed in this medium than integrated in large quantities to BloggingHeads.tv article. (which is what would necessarily happen if deleted) For all these reasons and more, keeping is the best option. Cardsplayer4life 06:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:LC points 2 and 7. Stifle (talk) 20:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - BloggingHeads.tv is notable, and therefore list of on air contributors to episodes is notable. Does not fail above mentioned tests, and integration into main article after deletion would cause many problems. Liveforever22 08:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, notability is not automatically inherited. – sgeureka t•c 12:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Sgeureka is correct, notability is not inherited . WP:NOTINHERITED--Hu12 16:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Neutral although I lean to delete. I am not familiar with BloggingHeads.tv, and although the list is well formatted, I usually !vote delete for imdb-like lists and prefer external links to such lists. But since I don't know an external site that offers the same kind of information, I abstain from !voting for now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sgeureka (talk • contribs) 12:23, 9 November 2007
 * Delete per my nom.--Hu12 16:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Seems informative and a well structured wikipedia article. It should definitely stay. DiegoGirl 19:06, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tikiwont 12:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletions.   -- the wub  "?!"  14:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The guidelines seem excessively vague when it comes to these lists - can see a case for both delete and keep. That said, here's one thing that bothers me about it: The external links throughout the article, with a dedicated column for them, seem somewhat spammy. I say do with them what's done for the author name - just link to articles about them when applicable, or redlink or don't link when they're not. MrZaius  talk  14:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Seems like a decently useful list of notable subjects. No harm in it's existence, and doesn't violate any policies by its inclusion that I can see. • Lawrence Cohen  18:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Useful page. -asx- 23:40, 15 November 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.