Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Burt Reynolds on TV

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, the keep arguements didn't give a policy based reason for keeping. This is a Secret ^account 20:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Burt Reynolds on TV

Burt Reynolds on TV (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This list is better suited for IMDb. the_undertow ^talk 08:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep But rename to Burt Reynolds filmography and include his films from the main article. Lugnuts 09:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete A step below indiscriminate information, this list of TV shows tells us far less than what one would find on imdb.com or on a Burt fansite. In one paragraph in the main article, you could write, "Reynolds appeared in Riverboat, Gunsmoke, Branded..." etc. etc. etc. and take up less space. If you go to imdb.com, you'll likely find the role that Reynolds played, and possibly the date of the TV episode he was in. However, why should we be hosting articles that duplicate what's already on imdb.com anyway? Mandsford 14:07, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
• STRONG KEEPWikipedia is not imdb also, there are several things on this page that did not come from imdb. Also this page was created to help keep down the size of the main page. Also kept of stuff that people might would try to say was useless trivia. But if thats what you want. It can be added to this page expanding it further.Aladdin Zane 16:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
  • The talk show appearances are trivial. Most of those appearances aren't even slightly notable in Reynolds's career. They don't belong in the main article, but they shouldn't be added to a new article either. Crazysuit 02:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
• Merge back to Burt Reynolds. This is an unnecessary content fork from there. His article is not so massive that it can't contain this material. No need for a split at this time. If editors there want to whittle it down to notable appearances or whatever, they can thrash it out on the talk page. Otto4711 17:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep or delete, but don't merge the "list of talk show appearances" back. I originally removed the "list of talk show appearances" from the main article, Reynolds has made hundreds of guest appearances on talk shows and variety shows, so there doesn't seem to be much point in trying to list them all. The IMDb link already lists 118 of them, which is more than twice as many as this list, if anyone wants to see every talk show appearance they can visit IMDb. Crazysuit 02:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

• The talk show appearances may not be notable (individual ones may or may not be) but his recurring and starring series roles certainly are and belong in the main article. Otto4711 01:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete or get rid of everything NN on this list and merge. If people want a complete list they can just go to IMDB. Ridernyc 20:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, notable, makes sense as a subarticle. Everyking 05:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
• KeepI see no harm in keeping this list, one man's trash is another man's treasure. What other sites do or don't list should have no bearing on what is worth keeping or not. Jacksinterweb 18:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

No Harm has no bearing as well. the_undertow ^talk 19:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

No Harm actually does have bearing here. Also if you notice atleast half say keep, while less than half say delete. So oI think it is time you removed the tag from the page and we close this discussion, with the page being left here.Aladdin Zane 19:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

NOHARM is not a good argument to keep, and so I was pointing that out to Jacks, who used that line of reasoning. As far as removing the tag - it's a conflict of interest for me to close my own nomination. Besides this article has no sources, is a pure list, original research, etc. Another admin will have to close because I'm not convinced that it needs to be withdrawn. Not a single KEEP vote here has cited policy and how that policy was satisfied. the_undertow ^talk 19:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

No policy has to be cited, for it to be kept, and references has been added to prove it isn't original research. Also I will point out on the How to Keep It states nothing about having to bring up a policy as a reason to keep, but it does state these reasons "Articles may survive the deletion process for several reasons: A consensus of editors believe the article is encyclopedic. The article improves to encyclopedic standards while the discussion is underway. No consensus emerges, in which case the article stays." Did you notice the last one? Aladdin Zane 00:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Apologies, "ho harm" was just my bad choice of words, not my rationale for keeping. I personally see no value in such a listing, but realize others do. Jacksinterweb 00:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• Trim&Merge or Delete While Burt Reynolds is indeed a notable actor, most of his TV appearances are not notable, especially when about half of the TV shows didn't even have anough popular impact to spawn a wiki article. Let imdb list his appearances in minutiae and provide a link there in the main article. Just the most important TV appearances should be mentioned in the main article. – sgeureka ^t•c 18:56, 7 November 2007 (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.