Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Kramer (presenter)

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 No consensus for deletion (default keep). The nomination did not assert valid criteria for deletion, in that it seems to imply that notability was temporary. The sole participant who supported deletion stated the reason was that the subject had not "made innovative contributions to the field of entertainment", which is not a requirement for establishing notability. The sole keep recommendation was also completely non-valid. So we are left with nothing to consider, in which case the deletion policy advises us to decide as keep. Considered relisting, but I did not belive this discussion would get any better, considering its poor start. Editors should endeavor to improve the article. Failing that, a valid renomination should be considered. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 16:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Alex Kramer (presenter)

Alex Kramer (presenter) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

time to remove failed Quiz show presenters who are now not on any terrestrial channel & are not up to Notability Wikipedia standards.

A person being only on in-store TV promo advert is hardly Notable! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bertsquirrel (talk • contribs) 21:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment fixed malformed listing (please use {{afd2}}). Also note that "not now on any terrestrial channel" is not a reason for deletion; people may be notable even after they are no longer on the air. Notability is not temporary. I found at least one source about her from a newspaper in Wales [1]. More may be available. cab (talk) 23:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - The fact that a subject is no longer notable is not reason to delete. Once notability is established, notability remains. If this person was notable, then the article should not be deleted. - Fritzpoll (talk) 23:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment by bertsquirrel - was any quiz presenter on after midnight on ITV1 ever notable? the fact that nominated for deletion before shows they are not. other presenters (ie Anna Fowler) rightly got deleted ages ago, yet she has a web presence too. That's why I nominated it. - You decide.Bertsquirrel (talk) 00:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Pages are judged on their own merit, not on what happens to other pages. The fact that this was nominated for deletion before (not that I can see it in the logs) is also irrelevant; on the one hand you can argue that people want to get rid of it, on the other, you can argue that this implies that consensus opposed deleting it. To avoid this, the fact that articles have been considered previously for deletion is not a criterion for deletion - Fritzpoll (talk) 00:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment One old newspaper interview is hardly facts for notability. Perhaps her lads' mag underwear poses & thousands of screencaps on quiz tv forums is the basis for notability today! This person was picked for deletion as one of the main culprits who almost prostituted themselves to ITV to get money from gullible users via these tacky quizzes. The "Make Your Play" page & similar have been severly edited from it's original content as proof no-one cares or rates as of value. It alone should be left, but an article on those within it is worthy of deletion. The fact none of the presenters have made it beyond quiz tv shows they are not notable. The lack of interest apart from tech replies shows I'm right. Bert's Quarrel perhaps? Bertsquirrel (talk) 04:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - following some digging around, I conclude that she is not notable in her own right. Being the presenter of television programmes does not accord her notability. She has not had a significant part in a notable TV programme (one of many presenter of Quiz Call), does not appear to have a large fan base and has not made innovative contributions to the field of entertainment. As such, she fails WP:BIO. That said, I should like to state that this does not endorse the reason given by the nom, which was that she was no longer notable. - Fritzpoll (talk) 21:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete My point summed up rather well by another. Have nothing against her personally, but if she is worthy of deletion, all other non-notable call-in TV Quiz Presenters (ie the lot...) should go the same way. Wikipedia is not a fan site or a place for a CV as this entry appeared to be. Bertsquirrel (talk) 22:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep She was a main & regular presenter on ITV1 Make Your Play & Glitterball for well over a year from Sep 06-Dec 07: the amount of hours she was on ITV1 (a main channel) surely means she is the MOST NOTABLE of all Quiz Presenters. The amount of clips on YouTube & other web presence she has via quiz forum comments & photos shows that this person is worthy of an entry & that same entry that was severely edited before this one had been on Wikipedia for well over a year, with a photo of the person even, got locked for abuse by comment writers: she must be well-known in her circles to get that sort of attention. Fritzpoll hasn't done much research on her. Wikipedia is flawed by this sort of half-hearted 5 min look research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.99.129 (talk) 04:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Have reverted page detail to what it was just before deletion notice. Doesn't look a person of no worthy note to me.

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.