Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States election night television coverage

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. Rjd0060 (talk) 14:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

United States election night television coverage[edit]

Weak delete (nominator) Nothing but a big old table, I think WP:NOT#INFO applies here, but if someone can convince me otherwise, I'll gladly withdraw. « Diligent Terrier [talk] 00:15, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Topic is of no significance that I know of. And most of the sources are YouTube videos, which (a) aren't allowed as WP:RS and (b) are probably just snippets of coverage that may not indicate all the hosts/anchors who were involved. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: PROD nomination was contested this past February. « Diligent Terrier [talk] 00:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as United States election night television coverage is notable but there's no evidence that this particular aspect of it is significant. JJL (talk) 00:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't this a notable topic? I mean, millions of people watch, it's occasionally been the subject of controversy. Just to pluck a random example, Moore's famous film Fahrenheit 9/11 devotes like the first 5 minutes to this specific topic. Admittedly the current article looks quite like something that runs afoul of WP:NOT. --Rividian (talk) 00:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Election night coverage is important, but that's not what this article is. It's simply an unexplained table of anchors, hosts, and/or commentators (even that's not clear). The controversy about election night coverage has typically revolved around projections, and those are done by the networks' poll analysts and producers, not on-camera personalities. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - This is getting crazy. Now TV coverage needs its own article? I mean, come on, seriously. Even if it is an election. --LordSunday (₪Scribe₪) (♦) 01:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Assuming weore dealing with the upcoming 2008 US Presidential Election, then Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. MuZemike (talk) 05:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you even look at the article? It deals with elections from 1980 onward. --Rividian (talk) 14:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is almost interesting enough to keep, except "It's interesting" is not a reason to keep... it's nothing more than a list of reliable sources for election night. Hmmm... now, if there were articles written about the impact that the coverage had, then the coverage would be notable. Methinks...--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Each US presidential election since 1932 has been covered by TV stations, as shown by Google News search, which discloses substantial discussion of the coverage in each of those elections at least from 1948 on. It is preferable to have one listing, which could be expanded with additional information, than to have separate articles on each election night.(edited)Edison2 (talk) 20:06, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not for news or indiscriminate collections of information. Stifle (talk) 10:20, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What importance does this article has? Basically, Nothing. Everyone knows that the main evening news anchor with the Sunday morning news anchor covers the election. Lehoiberri (talk) 16:00, 27 August 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.