Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of WABC-TV personalities


 * 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

List of WABC-TV personalities

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This page was kept and moved as a result of a previous AfD, but moving it to a new page does not solve its problem. It is still full of cruft and its contents can, and should, be re-merged into the main WABC-TV article. Having a stand-alone page could be in violation of WP:NOT and only serves a small group.

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons:

Rollosmokes 07:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete all - indiscriminate lists with poor definition. 81.104.175.145 09:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Just. It's listcruft, but red links are minimal. - Tiswas (t) 10:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 13:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep: It's no more crufty than any other list, it's tough to claim that WABC is a non-notable station, I'm not sure what's "indiscriminate" about it, and what definition other than these are current or former on-air personalities is required? About the only thing I'd want to see is some sourcing.    RGTraynor  14:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * For "no more crufty", see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Nobody is claiming that WABC is a non-notable station.  For "indiscriminate", the list has broad inclusion criteria but no selection criteria.  As you say yourself, the definion is poor and cannot be improved.  81.104.175.145 15:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you, but I'm entirely capable of putting words in my own mouth without outside help; far from my saying the definition was "poor," it's perfectly serviceable. That aside, I commend the quote "This is an essay. It is not a policy or guideline; it merely reflects some opinions of its authors."  When WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is raised to the status of official policy, then it'll become a valid AfD ground.    RGTraynor  16:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * What exactly is your point? 81.104.175.145 16:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete: Notability is not the issue. This information was previously, and is better served, within the main articles of these stations.  There are no other television station articles with separate pages for current and former staffers, so these four should not be any different than the others.  And these lists can be pared-down to satisfy those with concerns about size.  Rollosmokes 16:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep all Excellent navigation devices to blue linked articles. Paring it down would serve no purpose, it needs to be comprehensive to be useful. Anyway, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a personal essay. Can you imagine a legal proceeding where you weren't allowed to discuss other court cases that were decided. The basis of our judicial system is precedence. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 21:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I hate to be the one to break it to you, but Wikipedia is not a system of law. There is no such thing as precedent.  Also, by saying "X is just an essay", you have done two things: you have denounced the opinion of a significant number of people as irrelevant (remember, we work on consensus, a sharing of opinions), and in doing so have inspired an irrepressible urge within me to cause extreme physical pain to your person.  AfD is neither a vote nor a trial - it is a discussion.  WP:AADD lists common examples of flawed arguments that come up in such discussions.  They are known to be flawed, and the lack of a policy tag makes those arguments no less flawed.  81.104.175.145 23:39, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep as the original AfD's for these articles were closed less than 24 hours before they were re-nominated for deletion. However, rename WNYW-TV News Team to List of WNYW-TV personalities for consistency. Also, if a merge is being proposed by the nominator, then deleting the article is quite possibly a violation of the GFDL. The proper way to merge content is to copy the merged contents and redirect the old article to the newly merged article. Whether to do this or not with these articles is outside the scope of an AfD discussion. DHowell 23:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Correction rename to List of WNYW personalities to match WNYW article name and proper FCC call sign. DHowell 20:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, nominating articles for deletion for a second time when they have recently been closed isn't in my view acceptable. We shouldn't "play the odds" and hope that next time we get lucky. Malla  nox  01:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep all an unreasonable use of process. The ""News Team" lists were merged into these, and now the articles should have a chance to be developed. DGG
 * Keep all per RGTraynor and DGG, and rename WNYW-TV News Team, per DHowell.--JayJasper 15:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. It maybe listcruft, but it should stay the way it is. After this, do not re-nom.--Edtropolis 13:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Let me see if I've read that correctly - you've just said "It doesn't belong here, but it should stay anyway". There is also no prohibition on renomination - ever.  81.104.175.145 23:39, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * do not delete - DGG and Mallanox have identified an abuse of process. I think the best idea is merging into the parent TV station articles, perhaps as "current personalities" and "past personalities" sections; but if the previous AfD seemed to be leaning towards keep, that's a second-best option. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 02:35, 19 June 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.