Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/US Channels DirecTV Needs

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. --Coredesat 06:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] US Channels DirecTV Needs

US Channels DirecTV Needs (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Article is an opinion piece with no usefulness, no references, and an indirect assertion of the importance of the omissions in question at best. Nominating for AfD only because I'm not convinced that CSD G10 can be applied here. Nihiltres(t.l) 22:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete as nominator. Nihiltres(t.l) 22:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong delete; opinion/nonsense article. Dicklyon 22:48, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong and speedy delete. Violates POV; while I sympathize with the contents of the article, Wikipedia is not the place for this. --Son 23:03, 18 August 2007 (UTC) (Update: Son 23:08, 18 August 2007 (UTC))
  • Delete; Definately not encyclopedic. Only shows opinions of author and editor(s). - Rjd0060 23:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete; It's only the user's opinion, no facts. — TheHoosierState89 (talk) 00:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete; Wikipedia is not a soapbox. — Coren (talk) 00:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete; pov/nonsense --Mhking 03:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete and smite the OA for WP:OWNERSHIP. Which polices does this articles not violate? The articles contains an inherent non-neutral point of view, is completely unverifiable, is pure original research, and violates several sections of WP:NOT—WP:NOT#OTHOUGHT, WP:NOT#SOAPBOX, and WP:NOT#WEBSPACE among them. --Farix (Talk) 04:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete; probably violates more than just the aforementioned wikipedia policies, not to mention it is all opinion.--Kyle(talk) 03:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete as useless directory, unsourced and POV-filled article. Throw snowballs in as well.JForget 23:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Pointless list.--Bedivere 18:59, 22 August 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.