Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jon Burnett

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 as a non-notable biography, WP:BIO refers. (aeropagitica) 21:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jon Burnett

Jon Burnett (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

The entry offers nothing but information that can be found on KDKA-TV's Web site. Additionally, not every local television news person warrants a page. Wiki isn't a popularity contest or a directory, therefore this entry should be deleted. Write_On_1983 talk | contribs 19:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Keep and Re-Write - Gotta disagree with ya. Jon has been at KD for years and like some Washington, DC anchors, I think that a certain amount of time at a station should get you a quick mention. Not for a kid who just started in the business, though. I say keep it and have someone re-write it. - SVRTVDude (VT) 20:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete -per nom --TREYWiki 21:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Jon Burnett is an award winning journalist and weathercaster with more than 30 years of experience. He is certainlly deserving of a page. Kd lvr 22:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep If all of the information can be found on KDKA-TV's website this may be an indication the article has been thoroughly researched or the article is a copyright infringement. There are other proper places to deal with these issues. Your comment that "Wiki isn't a popularity contest ..., therefore this entry should be deleted" is a non-sequitor, but I think you know that, and I'm beginning to wonder if you and a group of your friends are just playing a joke with these deletion nominations. On the chance you are serious, please don't use AfD to prod for improvement of an article, simply ask the birders or the editors to add information and sources. Please read and respect the box at the top of WP:AfD:
Before listing an article for deletion here, consider whether a more efficient alternative is appropriate:
For problems that do not require deletion, including duplicate articles, articles needing improvement, pages needing redirects, or POV problems, be bold and fix the problem or tag the article appropriately.
KP Botany 00:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as unsourced and possible copyvio. Nearly every KDKA personality page that has been put up for AfD was taken directly from the KDKA site. I disagree with Write's and Trey's reasoning. Those are really just WP:IDONTLIKEIT than a concrete reason for deletion. DarkAudit 03:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Question Is it not possible for more information to be gathered from another source, perhaps? Kd lvr 14:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Please see The Proposed Community Ban for Kd lvr and Kdkatpir2. Think of there comments invalid. --TREYWiki 15:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - A local TV weatherman? I wouldn't even assume that national TV weatherman are automatically notable!- fchd 21:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - He is currently serving as a weathercaster, but he has experience as a journalist and a talk show host as well.Kd lvr 03:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete... never won an Emmy, no substantive local media coverage. Calwatch 04:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep I don't think weather people can win an Emmy. Regardless, that's not the issue or the standard we should be using. You can win an Emmy (for instance, as part of a group of people or an organization) and not be notable and you can never get so much as a 'World's best dad' award and be notable. In this case, notability outside of the local market is a bit problematic but I'm willing to err on the side of keeping the article. Seed 2.0 11:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
keep. Significant media figure in a big and important market.Nucleophilic 00:09, 3 May 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.