Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julian Fell

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. -Doc^g 02:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Julian Fell[edit]

fails WP:BIO — Swpb ^{talk contribs} 20:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not notable outside the Countdown/Scrabble fandom. Tevildo 00:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as stated before, I don't see the value of deleting a factual article with sources. Two be Countdown champion you need to win 11 televised shows, that's over 8 hours of screen time. Nobody is saying that every Countdown contestant should have his or her own page, but it doesn't seem unreasonable that the Champions of the game show (55 in 22 years)) should have their own articles. Mglovesfun 02:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Mglovesfun - a champion of a very popular show sounds notable enough to me, and the article is of at least reasonable quality. --Phl3djo 20:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-encyclopedic, non-notable. This is the third of these I've seen today. Please would authors distinguish between cruft and encyclopedic content. WMMartin 17:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the basis that this middle-age-interest article is just as notable as much of Wikipedia's teenage-interest content, so it improves the balance of the project. Greg Grahame 02:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per the championship. Just H 02:18, 3 January 2007 (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.