Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Match Game panelists and other key personnel
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 Delete. TexasAndroid (talk) 16:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
List of Match Game panelists and other key personnel[edit]
- List of Match Game panelists and other key personnel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
This is simply a list of people that have some relation to the show, I see no reason why it can't just be incorporated into the article the normal way, instead of being transcluded like it is now. — Dædαlus Contribs /Improve 06:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - no stance: It does not appear to be transcluded now, and as it is a fairly sizeable whack of text and wikicoding, not to mention being a sea of blue, I would be hesitant to include it straight-up into the main article in its current form. -- saberwyn 09:05, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete the epitome of an indiscriminate collection of information. ~ AmeIiorate U T C @ 09:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete Agree with Ameliorate. WTF?? We will be getting cast and credits for all TV series next!! Ohconfucius (talk) 12:00, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Old Man Periwinkle said, "I think this article is a big list of indiscriminate information that could almost never be sourced. Therefore, it should be ______ed." No seriously, Delete as indiscriminate and unsourced. Some of these people were Z-list celebs even then (such as Gene Wood, who was mostly an announcer). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 12:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. That is a terrible idea. So are other indiscriminate collections of internal links that are not notable topics on their own. I just don't like it. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:52, 29 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.