Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kristine Sorensen

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. One of the keep !voters argued keep twice, and another one is an indefinitely blocked user. Other than those, there appears to be consensus to delete. --Coredesat 01:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kristine Sorensen

Kristine Sorensen (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Local television news anchors do not warrant enough credibility to receive individual pages. Write_On_1983 talk | contribs 01:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Awards indicate notability. Nom appears to be on a WP:POINT kick with all the AfDs posted for KDKA anchors. DarkAudit 03:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Abstain for now new information makes my previous comment moot. DarkAudit 03:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Agrreed: Awards indicate notability. Kd lvr 17:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This woman is a great news anchor. One of, if not, the best in Pittsburgh. Also, Wikipedia is an online Encyclopedia and I'm pretty sure that you find people in an Encyclopedia. Kdkatpir2 17:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Not every television news anchor deserves a page. People like Katie Couric and national folks, yes. But Wiki isn't a popularity contest. Her name can be written as part of KDKA's Wiki entry, but not every human warrants a page! Additionally, all of the content on the page comes right from the station's Web site. Nothing says unique. It should be deleted. --Write_On_1983 talk | contribs 18:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Based on awards. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 19:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete it seems as only KDKA's people have wiki pages. Strong Delete, per nom --TREYWiki 21:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - She has been there since 03? Come on, give her a couple more...alot more...years then she can have her own Wiki page. - SVRTVDude ^(VT) 21:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This page must be kept as it is about an award winning' news anchor. Kd lvr 21:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. All the KDKA cheerleading aside, I see no notability in a mid-market local news anchor. ---Charles 21:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
  • • Comment Kd lvr is a sock of Kdkatpir2 or vise versa. So ALL of his comments are invalid.--TREYWiki 21:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment [[That is not true! Please see my User page for more. Kd lvr 21:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment - User:Kd lvr and User:Kdkatpir2 were created within 3 hours of each other on September 18th, 2006. User:Kdkatpir2 at 16:49 and User:Kd lvr at 19:19. Look at the edit times as well. No edits happen at the same time. - SVRTVDude ^(VT) 21:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
• The above statement is not true. Please see user page for information. Kd lvr 22:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete Copyvio. [1]. Pretty telling as to notability, as well, if the creator had such scant material to work from that a single, entirely affiliatd source was used w/plagiarism. --Wysdom 00:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
• Question :What I would like to know is why can't more information be gathered on this journalist so her page can be expanded?Kd lvr 14:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment re: WP:POINT. If the point is, "Must be notable; reliably, independently, verifiably sourced; and not in violation of copyright law"? ...I'm okay with that. --Wysdom 00:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment at the time, it appeared that nom was only putting KDKA personalities up for AfD. It appears that the situation has changed. DarkAudit 03:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as unsourced and copyvio. The KDKA personality pages are just cut-and-paste jobs from the KDKA site. Write and Trey are still only voicing WP:IDONTLIKEIT, but there are other reasons this page warrants deletion. DarkAudit 03:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Please don't use AfD to prod for improvement of an article, and if it is a copy vio, it should be removed immediately, not discussed. 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 18:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

"Comment" IMHO, an article in violation of copyright is an article in need of deletion, if it was copyvio from the getgo--shows bad faith (you don't need ANY Wikilore to know plagiarism is a no-no--we all learned that back when writing our first book reports) and is an overall indictment of the creator's willingness to contribute anything valuable (if they didn't care enough to actually write something on their own--about something they DIG...?) I have a general objection to the time and effort of the community being funneled into "boldly" improving articles not even the creator gave a rat's behind about.

Having said all that (and please know, KP, that none of the snark therein is directed at you--it's just a general grump)--you're quite right. I should have deleted the copyvio content immediately, and it was irresponsible of me not to do so. Thank you, sincerely, for the reminder. Sometimes I forget WP:CommonSense. >.<

Best regards, Wysdom 19:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Please see The Proposed Community Ban for Kd lvr and Kdkatpir2. Think of there comments invalid. --TREYWiki 15:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment The proposed community ban has been withdrawn by its originator[2] who opted for an RFCU which was returned as a negative to the accusation of sock puppetry[3] and declined for further review due to lack of evidence. These accusations have been withdrawn or proven false. KP Botany 04:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as I could not find substantive local media coverage of the anchor as a person. Calwatch 04:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I think people need to start reading policy pages rather than just showing up at AfD and opining whatever they like for whatever reason. WP:BIO notes that TV personalities must "[have] a large fan base or a significant 'cult' following [...] [or have] made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment." I dont think being a local TV anchor counts. Pablosecca 22:44, 2 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.