Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zuraidah Alman


 * 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. NW ( Talk ) 01:35, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Zuraidah Alman

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Doesn't satisfy the criteria detailed at WP:CREATIVE (which includes journalists), hasn't been widely cited by peers or successors, no new concepts/techniques/major roles/critical attention or significant contributions. Does not satisfy WP:ENTERTAINER nor WP:BIO either as I see no awards/nominations/large fan base. ƒ(Δ)² 17:16, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. After some reflection, I believe that TV journalists who have appeared prominently on several different programs are notable under criterion 1 of WP:ENTERTAINER, since they are "television personalities" (and perhaps "opinion makers") who have "had significant roles in multiple notable ... television shows." Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note to closing admin, and other participants in the AfD Per discussion here, consensus is that WP:CREATIVE applies here, and not WP:ENTERTAINER as cited above. ƒ(Δ)² 16:30, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Holding a brief discussion on a noticeboard, without having the courtesy to inform anyone who has expressed opinions contrary to yours, does not achieve "consensus' to ignore the text of a guideline. This is the sort of content dispute that ought to be worked out through reasoned discussion in context (that's what the AFD process is for, although it's often hard to tell); and trying to short-circuit it through low profile discussions elsewhere isn't a great display of good faith. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:51, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * There is clear consensus actually. 6 editors agree ENTERTAINER does not apply there. You're the only one who thinks it does. ƒ(Δ)² 17:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a brief, low-profile discussion started and "closed" by you without even having the courtesy to notify me of the potential debate. It ignores the well-establish practice/consensus that more than one notability guideline (eg, WP:PROF, WP:AUTHOR) may apply to an article. And it never addresses what the guideline actually says, particularly with regard to "television personalities" and "opinion makers." Finally, that 6-1 "consensus" counts each of your posts as a separate !vote, which is pretty pathetic.Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:34, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It's still open, if you wish to comment there. I haven't closed it. I wanted a third opinion; I already know yours. Additionally (I've mentioned this before) I don't think multiple policies apply here at all so well-established practice or not, it doesn't apply here. At all. And finally, I'm not counting each of my own posts as a separate !vote, I'm counting the comments left by other editors in that discussion. Please get your facts straight. Cheers, ƒ(Δ)² 10:27, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:10, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: Why do we have all these CTV anchor pages? Do we really need a page for every single CTV anchor? Refer to the WP:NOT section on indiscriminate information. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 03:48, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

Comment, not a !vote. Sometimes things are right in front of your face, but you don't see them soon enough. Category:Television journalists is a subcategory of Category:Television personalities, as shown on this page, so that WP:ENTERTAINER expressly applies, so that the claimed failure to meet WP:CREATIVE doesn't control the outcome, and the article should be kept Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:30, 19 October 2009 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW ( Talk ) 21:47, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. I don't believe news anchors qualify under ENT unless they're doing entertainment news. It doesn't read like she had multiple significant roles, and there are no rs to support anything. Lara  14:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep--Abebenjoe (talk) 15:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete - Claiming that a news anchor satisfies WP:ENTERTAINER because they've "had significant roles in multiple...television shows" is a stretch. Not notable. Snottywong (talk) 00:11, 27 October 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.