Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of RCTI personallities


 * 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   delete.  MBisanz  talk 03:11, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

List of RCTI personallities

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Indiscriminate list of information, misspelled title: WP:INDISCRIMINATE Davidelit (talk) 15:05, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete for slightly different reasons than nom. It's not totally indiscriminate (although I agree there are no clear inclusion criteria for what makes a person in RCTI an "RCTI personality"), and a misspelled title isn't a deletable offense.  But almost all the entries here are non-notable, and the lack of inclusion criteria is troublesome. Endorse deletion. Politizer talk / contribs 17:17, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete The list contains 5 blue-linked names and 32 red-linked. Not in itself a deletion reason, but there is no indication as to individual notability and no inclusion criterion except for the vague definition as "anchor". No indication as to whether the list is exhaustive or merely selected. (Miss-spelling is not a deletion reason) --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 19:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. There is too much wrong with this article to mention. Timneu22 (talk) 19:01, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep or userfy As per Politizer, we don't delete articles because they have misspellings in their titles. Also as per Politizer, it is not an indiscriminate list. Since this station is in Indonesia, it is probably difficult to find sources for every person, but even if the people on the list are not notable, the station itself is notable. In addition, there are similar lists on wikipedia: NBC_evening_news_anchors, ABC_evening_news_anchors. Finally there was no effort to  clean up the article first in violation of policy, policy dictates that deletion is the last resort.
 * {| class="wikitable collapsible collapsed"

!align="left" width="700"|Policy: Deletion should be a last resort
 * WP:PRESERVE Policy "Whatever you do, endeavour to preserve information."
 * WP:PRESERVE Policy "Whatever you do, endeavour to preserve information."
 * WP:PRESERVE Policy "Whatever you do, endeavour to preserve information."


 * WP:Notability Guideline "If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of its subject, look for sources yourself."


 * WP:BEFORE Before nominating an article for deletion. If it's not already, Tag the article with any noted problems...Consider making the page a useful redirect or proposing it be merged rather than deleted...When nominating an article for deletion due to sourcing concerns, a good-faith attempt should be made to confirm that such sources aren't likely to exist...If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD.


 * WP:Deletion Policy Wikipedia urges any contributor to read the Wikipedia:Deletion policy before deleting or nominating an article for deletion. "When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page."


 * WP:INTROTODELETE "Remember that deletion is a last resort. Deletion nominations rarely improve articles, and deletion should not be used as a way to improve an article, or a reaction to a bad article. It is appropriate for articles which cannot be improved."


 * Potential, not just current state  "In most cases deletion of an article should be a last resort"
 * }
 * travb (talk) 21:03, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * why don't you actually read the comments before posting&mdash; I didn't say the article should be deleted because of the misspelling, so don't put those words in my mouth. Politizer talk / contribs 21:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I was agreeing with you Politizer, that is what "as per" means. I disagree with the other reasons you want to delete this article. travb (talk) 22:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry then; I was under the impression that you were responding to me (I must have been thinking "as for" rather than "as per"). Nevertheless, I still believe your edits at the last two AfDs where you've posted have been POINTy and I object to what you're doing; I think this should be kept to the AfD talk page until that discussion has been resolved, because right now it gives the impression that you're just spreading a crusade to various AfDs and interrupting the process to further your point. Politizer talk / contribs 22:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the apology. I apologize for any misunderstandings myself, and not explaining myself better. I personally feel that Articles for Deletion are the most disruptive part of wikipedia, and this is support by a lot of facts. I would be happy to explain why on my talk page. travb (talk) 22:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Rename and Keep. Anchors for a network are notable; everyone connected with them--that;s another matter.  "Deletion is the last resort" is pretty basic policy around here. We can argue whether something is at that point, though; most bad articles are improvable to a certain degree, but not all are worth it.  DGG (talk) 23:08, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete List violates WP:IINFO, and WP:N. I would have suggested a merge but the notable personalities are already mentioned in the main article.  If these people were known for something as a whole, then the list would mean something and probably warrant independant coverage, but these people aren't noteworthy as a whole.  And before I'm accused of not doing my research, none of my searches have turned up anything. Themfromspace (talk) 23:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete The Indonesia project has been prone to red links lists for s considerable time. The big problem there is never any follow up - it is something that comes up at the project noticeboard - lists are created with imposing amounts of red links - in the time I have been on th eproject I have never seen adequate followup to actually provide valid articles to red links in lists created in the project.  Playing things with policy shows little or no understanding of the major WP Indonesia issue SatuSuro 08:42, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: listcruft, non-notable. JamesBurns (talk) 01:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as per DGG. I consider it harsh and somewhat derogatory to label it "listcruft, non-notable", in particular when such lists exist for US anchors.  I left a note at the Indonesian community portal: id:Pembicaraan Portal:Komunitas, requesting their opinion on who is notable there. Power.corrupts (talk) 22:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment unfortunately misguided - this article is in the english wikipedia WP Indonesia domain - to ask editors at an id location is missing the point completely. Too many lists are created in english wikipedia WP Indonesia that are started as lists of red links and have never been followed up. 'Harshness' is hardly a point to take issue with  - when it is continued addition of lists with little or no addition or follow up - it is simply that lists are created and nothing happens. SatuSuro 10:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * we will not encourage the addition of information here by discouraging their attempts to add it, even if inadequate. anyone here with the ability to do so can attempt to make use of the information in the articles there. While the enWP covers the world, it is hardly surprising that other language WPs cover their language areas better. To ask people working them who may know english well enough (looking at some of the user pages there, very many of them do) to help out in the coverage of their topics here hardly seems misguided. DGG (talk) 06:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Neutral - those people are consider as notable on Indonesian so they have individual articles on id.wikipedia. But I don't know how notable they are internationally. Borgx (talk) 00:49, 22 January 2009 (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.