Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CBBC On Choice
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 Redirected to List of BBC children's television programmes . ELIMINATORJR 18:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] CBBC On Choice
This information is already available in the BBC Choice article; there is no need for this article, it is not notable. TheIslander 23:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - Redundant list that already exists at List of BBC children's television programmes. Other information in the article is already in CBBC Channel article. —Travistalk 23:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - Same reasons as above, already got information about it on the BBC Choice article, this can be expanded (into it's own section) if there is enough information about it. Tiddly Tom 13:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - Same reasons that are given above. - Boy1jhn 15:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- So. This is mentioned in a list. It could be added to an alternative article. It is already mentioned in other articles. This is an obvious redirect to appropriate target. Splash - tk 21:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comments:
-
- "This is mentioned in a list."
- No, this includes a large list that is only a small part of another list that already exists.
- "This is mentioned in a list."
-
- "This is an obvious redirect to appropriate target."
- Possibly, though there's no need for the snarky tone you took in your comments - I nominated this in good faith. TheIslander 23:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, certainly, though without a complete consideration of the options. Those three that followed you, on the other hand, have reached incorrect conclusions from their own argumentation, having provided the very definition of a good redirect in their comments! Splash - tk 22:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- OK, fair enough. Thanks ;) TheIslander 22:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, certainly, though without a complete consideration of the options. Those three that followed you, on the other hand, have reached incorrect conclusions from their own argumentation, having provided the very definition of a good redirect in their comments! Splash - tk 22:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- Possibly, though there's no need for the snarky tone you took in your comments - I nominated this in good faith. TheIslander 23:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- "This is an obvious redirect to appropriate target."
- 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.
