Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Australian TV Newsreaders

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. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:18, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Australian TV Newsreaders[edit]

There are already categories that cover this. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 07:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Bidgee (talk) 08:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Bidgee (talk) 08:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a directory, also duplicates the existing category Australian television newsreaders and news presenters. WWGB (talk) 08:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:LISTCRUFT WP:NOTDIRECTORY. JamesBurns (talk) 09:22, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:CLN which specifically says lists and categories can coexist. The nominator's reasoning is faulty because the list says what channel and program the reader works for which is something a category cannot duplicate. Categories only make alphabetical lists of items and this is clearly more. (Also, this isn't a directory, directories are lists of things that otherwise wouldn't have articles or lists of barely connected items; neither applies to this) - Mgm|^(talk) 10:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:CLN makes it very clear that just because a category exists does not mean a list shouldn't as well hence no valid delete ratrionalle was given. Additionally this list clearly provides extra information that a category can not so the category, in my opinion, does not 'already cover this' and the lists hould be kept. Dpmuk (talk) 10:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lists like this are important and will become more important when people seek information for purposes of retribution. - Shiftchange (talk) 21:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: What? You want wikipedia to be a tool for getting revenge on people? I've seen some crazy keep votes in my time but that takes the cake! JamesBurns (talk) 00:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well crafted list that complements the cat. See WP:CLN—G716 <^T·_C> 21:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:CLN and the fact that this list contains plenty of information that is not available in the category. Also, the "Wikipedia is not a directory" policy "is not intended to encompass lists of links to articles within Wikipedia that are used for internal organization or to describe a notable subject," which is exactly what this is. DHowell (talk) 03:14, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - duplicates existing category content. JoannaMinogue (talk) 08:32, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There are already categories that cover this. TheClashFan (talk) 07:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it organizes the information on one page, much more conveniently than the categories, and the extra information makes it more useful for browsing articles and/or seeking information for the purpose of retribution. Nerfari (talk) 22:18, 16 March 2009 (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.