Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Australian TV newsreaders year by year

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. -- Cirt (talk) 17:03, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Australian TV newsreaders year by year[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Full list is nothing more than WP:OR with no references what-so-ever. Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:30, 6 January 2011 (UTC) 05:30, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:25, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:25, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:25, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think you are confusing unreferenced with "original research". --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:37, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Useful WILLROCKS10 (talk) 11:26, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I took the liberty of moving the above !vote, but that's a plain WP:ITSUSEFUL--137.122.49.102 (talk) 16:28, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename and cleanup - the "year by year" is misleading as it's not what you see right away in this massive article. I do believe it is a reasonable stand-alone list subject but the format is a very large mess that needs major editing for cohesion and style.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 16:28, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep for cleanup - inconsistent WP:MOS. glutter needs to be streamlined and some sections make more easier to read. --Takamaxa (Talk) 12:59, 7 January 2011 (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.