Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dave Benton (anchorman)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 redirect to WCIA. Consensus is to merge to WCIA. I'm pushing the redirect button since the merger has occurred. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 03:32, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Benton (anchorman)[edit]

Dave Benton (anchorman) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No actual notability: coverage because of the pathos is a violation of NOTNEWS DGG ( talk ) 03:53, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 17:30, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 17:30, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 17:30, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge to WCIA: A locally-visible person, without Wikipedia notability, then coming down with a fatal condition, does not make the subject cross into Wikipedia notability. To be fair: I haven't dug for more sources much. But the current article and sources are shallow on notability: fluff about how the "announcement went viral" (Doesn't everything these days?) and sourcing from a rewrite from Australia that repeatedly says "Chicago", which isn't even the same media market and generally can't receive this TV station. --Closeapple (talk) 22:05, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to WCIA: As the author of the article, I understand how he might not be notable based on this one announcement. The announcement, however, was notable for WCIA and it makes sense to merge this Wikipedia or pieces from it onto their Wikipedia page. ReachingtheStars (talk) 05:56, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 09:46, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I changed my !vote above to Redirect. Of note is that content was merged to WCIA from the article per the diff in the above !vote. A redirect could be performed, to retain the Revision history for proper attribution purposes per copyright requirements (see WP:ATTREQ). If deletion is to occur, performing a WP:HISTMERGE prior to deletion will be necessary per copyright requirements. NorthAmerica1000 09:46, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge  The topic passes WP:GNG, with coverage shown on the other side of the world.  "Actual notability" is not a policy-based argument, nor is it clear that WP:NOTNEWS has any relevance given the argument that this is a wp:prominent topic for WCIA.  See also, WP:MAD (Merge And Delete).  Unscintillating (talk) 00:45, 18 October 2014 (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.