 | This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2011 February 25. For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review. |
- 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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:20, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Closing Comments
As this is going to be controversial, I thought I would give a more detailed explanation of my reasoning than I would usually do!
Firstly, I would like to thank everyone who has commented here. Your opinions (including the responses to other people's comments) were invaluable. This is the strength of the AfD process - it allows discussion to take place, and a truly community-based decision to be made. So thank you everyone who took part.
Secondly, I have left Safiel in the 'delete' camp, as the nominator. Although s/he said that it should be closed as no consensus, this is not the same as saying "I now think that it should be kept" - if this assumption is incorrect, then please accept my apologies.
Thirdly, some of the arguments presented I judged as having less weight than others:
- Arguments presented by editors/IPs with few or no edits outside of the article and the AfD, although this only accounted for 8% of the total number of contributors
- "Per other people's arguments" with no argument of their own
- "Other people do/do not have an article"
- "If we delete this, we would have to reconsider other articles"
- Personal attacks against editors
- No reasoning given (i.e. a simple "Keep" and signature)
- "People will be looking for this article following the coverage"
- "Change to event article" - not for the reasoning as such, but as there was only one person who suggested this, so it is nowhere near consensus!
I did not discount them completely, but I felt that they were lesser arguments than others that were presented.
Now on to the actual reason for my judging the consensus as delete...
If this were a straight vote, then it would be numerically 25 deletes - 24 keeps - 1 other. If I ignored the "less weight" arguments discussed above, it would numerically be 23 deletes - 16 keeps.
However, AfD is not a numerical vote - it is the arguments which are important, and so I had to look at the main issues here.
Obviously, the main argument here is: "Is this a One Event item or not".
Almost all of the "deletes" say that it is (and/or that the event is the notable thing, not the person).
The arguments for "keeps" are basically saying that she was notable before this event as a result of the Emmy nominations and her career. (Incidentally, the fact that she works for a major CBS affiliate does not, in and of itself, make her notable). The arguments against this is that the nominations are for regional Emmys not national ones (which do not give the same level of notability) and that the coverage of her career prior to the event is minimal.
My feeling is that the arguments for keeping the article do not quite counter ONEEVENT. Whether the event itself deserves an article is a discussion for other places. As such I am closing this as a delete consensus.
I appreciate that however I had closed this AfD (delete, keep, no consensus) then it would be controversial! I trust that this fuller-than-usual explanation of the thoughts behind my decision will be beneficial to all contributors.
Regards, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:20, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]