Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angela Russell (2nd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 all - The deletion people seem to be setting the bar for notability too high; people with regional notability can still have encyclopedic articles on them, no matter how uninteresting it may be to people from elsewhere. Also, this discussion was very marred by a persistent sockpuppetteer, who certainly didn't help his cause. --Cyde↔Weys 17:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Angela Russell

[edit]
Note to closing admin: I have just blocked a bunch of strongly suspected sockpuppets of User:Spotteddogsdotorg. There are now some 35 such puppets in Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Spotteddogsdotorg. I've taken the somewhat unusual step of striking their comments now, since they are deliberately creating false impressions during the debate. Some of the deleters appear genuine, so I'll leave the debate to run. Great care needs to be exercised in the closure. -Splash - tk 21:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Minor figure from a local TV station and is seems very cruft like from a series of similar cfuft articles from User:Pressure Thirteen which will be nominated below. The original deletion discussion got a bit out of hand as more and more article were discovered. Adam 1212 16:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm listing a few related pages on this vote since they are the same sort of cruft and were all created by the same user, User:Pressure Thirteen

There may be more, but I think I got them all. Adam 1212 16:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Jim Gardner (broadcaster); delete remainder. They all generally fail the notability hurdles of WP:BIO and, as local broadcasters, are lacking in global merit. In particular, strong delete Wally Kennedy, because his claim of notability is the most minimal (part-time radio anchor). As for Jim Gardner, I feel he has achieved importance, and his article should be retained, primarily for his sponsorship of named scholarships at two major universities and his Broadcast Pioneers of Philadelphia honors, but also for his length of tenure and long-term participation in Independence Hall festivities on the Fourth of July. —C.Fred (talk) 16:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ALL (unless they are/were regulars at ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, FOX, MSNBC, etc.. I think the measure of notability of television anchors and reporters is if they are frequently on national network or cable television. If we include every two-bit personality who has appeared on local TV (and that includes Jim Gardner) then Wikipedia will become an indiscriminate repository of information, vulnerable to the adding unverified information faster than we are able to verify it, cluttering the encyclopedia and pulling down its general quality. JianLi 16:54, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All all of these have been merged into one of the following articles: *WPVI-TV Anchors, WPVI-TV Reporters, WCAU-TV Anchors, WCAU-TV Reporters, KYW-TV Anchors and KYW-TV Reporters. As idividuals they are not notable, but as a groups they are and that goes for [[Jim Gardner (broadcaster), too. By the way, the Independence Hall festivities on the Fourth of July is a purely local event with no national coverage, since it is of no national importance. Kramden4700 17:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All If they were on a nationally or internationally seen channel or network like ABC, CNN, WGN, WNBC, BBC. DW-TV, then they may be notable on their own. The group articles mentioned above seem to be a good solution and a model for how to deal with such people, since as a news team they may have some notability, but as individuals they are not notable, despite the fact that some of them have been on local televison for a few decades or host the local July 4th festivities. Buckner 1986 18:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, non-notable per WP:BIO. --Coredesat talk. o.o;;
  • If we keep these crufty articles we'll wind up on a slippery slope. What next? The lady who draws the lottery balls? Hey hey, ho ho, this sort of cruft has gotta go! Adam 1212 19:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I didn't look at every single one of these, but a few of the ones that I spotchecked looked notable enough to keep. For others that are just one-liner "This person is a reporter", I agree, those can be deleted, but should probably be submitted for AfD individually. --Elonka 18:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question. Is this AfD a blanket nom for all of the above names, or just for Angela Russell? If the latter, I agree that *her* article can be deleted. I just don't agree with the "Delete all" sentiment. --Elonka 18:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is a blanket nomination. That's why this is the second nomination. The first time around, the original nominator started tacking on extra article mid-stream. That's why that AfD was halted and it was relisted with a full listing at the start. —C.Fred (talk) 22:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, well, if I have to choose between "Keep All", and "Delete All", I'm going to go with "Keep All". There's enough solid verifiable notability on some of them, to justify individual articles. --Elonka 18:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All All are non-notable per WP:BIO. Cabled Substitution 00:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete almost all. The blanket nomination is a bit tricky because I could live with keeping the main news anchors Jim Gardner (broadcaster or people with some long history at the station like Robin Mackintosh or Walt Hunter or even Jim O'Brien (reporter) (although even these I would edge in favor of deletion, if only to avoid an unnecessary clogging of the journalist categories). I also slightly say keep Traynor Ora Halftown if only for originality. Let me also make again a point I made in the first discussion: would people arguing for keep also be ready to fight for keeping an article about the substitute traffic reporter of a network in Islamabad? If you answer yes then ok, we'll just agree to disagree. But if you answer no then I think you should reconsider your vote. Pascal.Tesson 03:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. Perfectly good articles that provide useful information. That's what encyclopedias are supposed to be about. --Tony Sidaway 11:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all per Tony Sidaway. I see that the usage of "notable" as a synonym for "interesting to me" is rearing its ugly head again: this should be stopped forthwith, please. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to collect information which might be "locally notable" into one place, otherwise we might as well get rid of all those articles on concepts in higher mathematics which hardly anyone contributing to this page is likely to ever either need or indeed be able to understand. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 11:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply to User:Tony Sidaway and User:Phil BoswellThere is no reason to keep them all, since all of the bios have been collected into WPVI-TV Anchors, WPVI-TV Reporters, WCAU-TV Anchors, WCAU-TV Reporters, KYW-TV Anchors and KYW-TV Reporters, which preserves the content of the articles, gives it a better context and doesn't waste space with a couple dozen crufty articles. Individually they don't meet WP:BIO, but as collective groups they do. Do you really think that a biography of a fill in local traffic reporter is even of intrest to someone where they are doing the traffic reporting? There are standards, and these people fail to meet them. Non-notable people and higher math concepts are apples and oranges and you really should not compare the two. Those articles actually have some value, these are just pure cruft. Now do you think the bio of every local TV reporter and back up traffic reporter in the world should be on Wikipedia? Adam 1212 13:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If what you say is true, then why weren't these articles simply converted into redirects to the relevant articles? If the material is elsewhere on Wikipedia, then you really shouldn't be wasting our time trying to stamp out multiple copies, but rather simply make an edit redirecting the article to the central version. It just doesn't make sense to try to delete an article that woule make a useful redirect. --Tony Sidaway 23:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I also see the old confusion between information and knowledge is also rearing its ugly head. There are accepted guidelines for the notability of people and disregarding those goes against a wide consensus. Pascal.Tesson 23:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no consensus that "non-notability" is ground for deletion. In fact, if you ever take the trouble to look at the deletion policy, you will see that it's grounds for merging or, at most, redirect. We're not in the business of destroying information; rather, our mission is to conserve it. --Tony Sidaway 23:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Tony, I know you know better. In fact, the deletion policy says the exact opposite what you say it does. Under "Problems that may require deletion" on the second line of the table is "Subject of article fails one of the following consensually accepted guidelines: [...] WP:BIO (for biographies)". That seems like consensus to me. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 23:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All each and every one of them is cruft, but the collected bios pages (WPVI-TV Anchors, WPVI-TV Reporters, WCAU-TV Anchors, WCAU-TV Reporters, KYW-TV Anchors and KYW-TV Reporters) not only have preserved these articles content (or lack there of) but collectively they meet the WP:BIO standards, unlike the individual articles which fail the WP:BIO standards. As mentioned by Pascal.Tesson above - would people arguing for keep also be ready to fight for keeping an article about the substitute traffic reporter of a network in Islamabad? I think not. Just because they are Americans on an American TV station does not make them notable. The only person I think you could argue on any of these TV lists mentioned above who is notable (and also not up for AFD) is Tamala Edwards, who was a network anchor and ABC News White House correspondent - something none of the people up for AFD seem to have going for them. If they all had the same notability as Tamala Edwards, who was a national news anchor, there would be no AFD, but since they don't they should all be deleted. Rekarb Bob 15:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the contents of all these articles have been merged into relevant parent articles, then we cannot delete them, no matter how much you might wish to (for reasons unknown but, presumably, worthwhile). The use of any content on Wikipedia is predicated on respect for the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. We do not violate copyrights just because we feel like it. I would appreciate if some of the people who took part in merging this content would replace the individual articles with redirects to the appropriate parent articles. Cheers, fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 23:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep anchors, delete reporters On the one hand, you've got people like Jim Gardner who is a Philadelphia institution a la Jerry Dunphy in LA or Irv Weinstein in Buffalo. On the other hand, you've got field reporters who have been at the 3rd-ranked station for two years. Big difference. Reporters can be redirected to the (callsign here) Reporters article, but anchors are notable enough to stand out on their own. The New York market has a similarly large number of articles about local newscasters that should also go through this process. Kirjtc2 12:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep all of these please they provide useful information and are verifiable too Yuckfoo 13:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All per WP:BIO. Love, Travel Plaza Babes 15:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Mild keep. I have noticed elsewhere on wikipedia that ALL local anchors have been requested to be included in wikipedia. I have myself added none (that I remember), but think that if the wikipedian(s) who made that request are contacted, they might object or try to recreate the article(s) later. I have only seen the one for Angela Russell, and can barely see that she might qualify as notable. Badbilltucker 22:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all per Elonka, many of these biographies are notable enough to keep. Yamaguchi先生 02:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment do you mean WP:BIO notable? In that case I would be happy to know which of these many biographies you're talking about. I'm guessing it's not Matt Pellman. Many keep votes are seemingly ignoring that there are existing guidelines. And before I hear the "it's a guideline it's not policy argument" let me preemptively retort that these guidelines represent a wide consensus. Pascal.Tesson 03:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. All (or at least some) of these people are well-known in at LEAST their local area. We allow local politicians, why not these? In fact, many (or all) of these are MORE well-known than politicians. I don't support deleting them all outright, but perhaps some of them should be deleted. Ram-Man 03:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Have you even read WP:BIO? Adam 1212 03:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All Being well-known in at LEAST their local area seems not to meet the WP:BIO standards the way I read them. JianLi makes a very good point about them not having any national notability by appearing on nationally broadcast channels. I also agree with him/her when he/she says "If we include every two-bit personality who has appeared on local TV (and that includes Jim Gardner) then Wikipedia will become an indiscriminate repository of information, vulnerable to the adding unverified information faster than we are able to verify it, cluttering the encyclopedia and pulling down its general quality." Each and every one of these people is a "two-bit personality" and that includes the people who have been not good enough to escape local TV for decades. Which leads me to wonder are some people voting to keep with their hearts, because they have seen these people for years? I really think that locals should maybe recuse themselves from the discussion since they would be bringing some bias to the table. Irv Weinstein in Buffalo is just as non-notable as the rest of thsese people whose "Degree of celebrity is too localized, parochial and minor." And just because someone claims that they read somewhere on Wikipedia that "all local anchors be included" is meaningless without sourcing it. Cheesehead 1980 14:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - this blanket nomination is fraught with problems. The biggest is that the blanket seems to cover minor reportes who have been with the station a mere few months, which really doesn't make a strong case for notability. And on the other hand, Jim Gardner is also covered which by the sounds of it, he is rather an iconic figure in the local broadcast area, who would pass the bar of notability for me. -- Whpq 14:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jim Gardner does not meet the WP:BIO standards just like the rest of these people. Being allegedly well known in your hometown is meaningless unless you have a wider - read national or international - notablity. None, I repeat none of the people listed along with Tom Jolls or Irv Weinstein or the other copule hundred local tv news anchors in the US. These are all cruft articles and need to be deleted. Adam 1212 16:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why must "widely" be interpreted as national or international? The WP:BIO guidelines specifically state that the criteria you are citing are "not intended to be an exclusionary list; just because someone doesn't fall into one of these categories doesn't mean an article on the person should automatically be deleted". The articles for each of the news anchors and reporters need to stand on their own merits. That's why I have a problem with this blanket deletion. It is a blind application of a guideline being interpreted as a rule without due consideration to a bolded admonition not to simply delete when the guidleines are not met. Achieving an iconic status within a locality works for me. For somebody like Jim Gardner, the information is verifiable, and will still be verifiable 10 years from now as he has been inducted as a broadcast pioneer. A keep for me. Applying the same sort of critical review to Angela Russell, there is a different outcome. She may become notable enough in the future, but for now, it's a delete or merge. -- Whpq 19:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Angela_Russell_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1145528229"