Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Across Indiana

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 (no consensus). TigerShark 23:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Across Indiana

Across Indiana (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

• Delete, non-notable local documentary that contrary to the article claims did not win an Emmy but rather a regional emmy.Very few google hits.Xpendersx 15:39, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment That an article makes a false or misleading claim is not an argument for deleting that article; it is an argument for fixing the false or misleading claim (and, in fact, the one you mention has already been fixed). Kurt Weber 04:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless sources backs its assertion to notability. - Mailer Diablo 18:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment You will note that WP:DP states that only if the article content is unverifiable does it need deleted; if it simply lacks source citations, then the article should be kept so someone can fix it. Kurt Weber 04:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep A weekly show that runs on every PBS outlet in the state (except Fort Wayne), seen in at least two major markets (Chicago and Indianapolis), and has been on the air for 17 years. Wild Chicago is a similar (albeit more humor oriented) local PBS show that's notable enough for inclusion, I can't imagine why this wouldn't be, it's actually shown over a wider geographical and population base than Wild Chicago is. Tubezone 20:46, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Wild Chicago being included in wikipedia is irrelevant, see Wikipedia:Inclusion is not an indicator of notability. Xpendersx 19:24, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment I agree with the policy, but my argument is that the two programs are of roughly similar notabilty for purposes of judging notability for inclusion, not that Wild Chicago is notable because it's in WP. Tubezone 20:06, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment While I support keeping this article, Wild Chicago isn't really a good example of a precedent since it hasn't been subject to an AfD yet. Kurt Weber 04:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep in the absence of a policy requiring a deletion in this case. The reasons for deletion cited by the nominator are irrelevant and not grounded in policy. Kurt Weber 04:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

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.