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 for future generations. I gather the copyvio that BlueValour is talking about is the screenshots, I am following up on that, but if its just the screenshots it doesn't affect the existance of the article. Herostratus 06:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WPVI-TV Anchors[edit]

This is Listcruft, NN, and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information Perhaps each station is notable enough to be given an article. But not the collective anchors and reporters of each station, and surely not individual anchors/reporters JianLi 06:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• This is a multi-article AFD
  • WPVI-TV Anchors and WPVI-TV Reporters
  • WCAU-TV Anchors and WCAU-TV Reporters
  • KYW-TV Anchors and KYW-TV Reporters

JianLi 06:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• See also Individual Anchors/Reporters AFD

• Delete them all, as listcruft. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:00, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, well-written, verifiable articles. If they were smaller I would have suggested merge, but they stand well on their own. JYolkowski // talk 15:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Individually these people are not notable, but as a group they are. It may also serve as a good template for other TV stations. Adam 1212 15:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into WPVI-TV, WCAU-TV, KYW-TV For each pair of articles, the content within is already listed inside the article for the station. JianLi 17:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The content is too much to merge with the main articles, but not notable enough for them all to have individual articles for each of the people. They do stand well on their own and I like the suggestion that they serve as a template for other stations. One other advantage is that if one of these people becomes notable beyond their limited sphere of influence, there is a nice base for the bio already there. Buckner 1986 18:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As a Philadelphia resident, I would prefer that some of these articles be kept intact, including the original Jim Gardner (WPVI anchor) article. Most of the individual articles have been essentially merged into each individual station's article, so the remaining individual articles can be deleted. However, the information included is important to Wikiproject:Philadelphia and those interested in Philadelphia. Rctbone 22:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep—They may be a bit extensive, but as long as the text remains verifiable, it causes no problems. Ardric47 23:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. These people fail WP:BIO individually. Putting them in a group doesn't make them pass. -- Mikeblas 03:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, collectively these meet my reading of WP:BIO, and it is best to have these in one central place rather than broken out into small stub articles. Yamaguchi先生 23:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Yamaguchi先生. Rekarb Bob 15:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Note I have proposed mergers between each pair of articles. JianLi 20:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I think they are too big to merge. Rekarb Bob 15:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - before closing I would ask the admin to check out the copyvio position. When we discussed the Walt Disney screen IDs it was agreed that whilst one was fair use, a gallery was possible copyvio. That seems to be the case here. BlueValour 01:23, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:BIO. Killfest2—Daniel.Bryant 10:38, 31 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.