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. X clamation point 04:51, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Democratic National Convention on Television[edit]

Articles that can have all of its information covered on separate articles dedicated to the National Conventions of the United States. Also nominating for precisely the same reasons:

Having these articles in existence is unnecessary as each National Convention article can precisely cover the same information. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 23:21, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is practically the definition of indiscriminate information, although that phrase's recent misuse makes me reluctant to invoke it here. Powers ^T 23:46, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Unless it's undenyably redundant, It could be as summary of all those clauses and sections. don't wantonly remove information, there's a name for people like that.--Ipatrol (talk) 23:56, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Better described as as unnecessarily redundant. I'm generally in support of comparative tables, but I don't see any purpose for comparing the news anchors for one network to those of another, or comparing those for one year to those of another. It's always worth reading the "And finally..." section of WP:NOT: "In general, 'that is a terrible idea' is always sufficient grounds to avoid doing something, provided there is a good reason that the idea is terrible." The creator of the table evidently had second thoughts about whether this would be a worthwhile project, and wisely stopped with the 2008 entries. Mandsford (talk) 19:08, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. Doesn't appear to have any point to it, just a list of who hosted the news coverage earlier this year, which is completely NN and irrelevant. I agree if anything notable happened with regards to TV coverage of these events, then that's better covered in the applicable article on the convention. There might be a half-decent article to be written on television coverage of the conventions in general over the years, but neither of these come close to that. 23skidoo (talk) 21:00, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What is "NN"?. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 22:21, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Not Notable" or "Non-notable" Mandsford (talk) 01:50, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unencyclopedic; hardly verifiable; information can be easily placed on "[year] [party] National Convention" articles individually instead.--Andrewlp1991 (talk) 02:44, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — While I disagree with Andrew that this fails WP:V, I don't see how the information here can be synthesized into an encyclopedic article or list that isn't just a collection of who broadcasted where. NW's Public Sock (talk) 20:56, 14 December 2008 (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.