326:
via quiz forum comments & photos shows that this person is worthy of an entry & that same entry that was severely edited before this one had been on
Knowledge for well over a year, with a photo of the person even, got locked for abuse by comment writers: she must be well-known in her circles to get that sort of attention. Fritzpoll hasn't done much research on her. Knowledge is flawed by this sort of half-hearted 5 min look research.
49:
which is not a requirement for establishing notability. The sole keep recommendation was also completely non-valid. So we are left with nothing to consider, in which case the deletion policy advises us to decide as keep. Considered relisting, but I did not belive this discussion would get any better, considering its poor start. Editors should endeavor to improve the article. Failing that, a valid renomination should be considered.
265:
from gullible users via these tacky quizzes. The "Make Your Play" page & similar have been severly edited from it's original content as proof no-one cares or rates as of value. It alone should be left, but an article on those within it is worthy of deletion. The fact none of the presenters have made it beyond quiz tv shows they are not notable. The lack of interest apart from tech replies shows I'm right. Bert's
Quarrel perhaps?
282:- following some digging around, I conclude that she is not notable in her own right. Being the presenter of television programmes does not accord her notability. She has not had a significant part in a notable TV programme (one of many presenter of Quiz Call), does not appear to have a large fan base and has not made innovative contributions to the field of entertainment. As such, she fails
48:
for deletion (default keep). The nomination did not assert valid criteria for deletion, in that it seems to imply that notability was temporary. The sole participant who supported deletion stated the reason was that the subject had not "made innovative contributions to the field of entertainment",
325:
She was a main & regular presenter on ITV1 Make Your Play & Glitterball for well over a year from Sep 06-Dec 07: the amount of hours she was on ITV1 (a main channel) surely means she is the MOST NOTABLE of all Quiz
Presenters. The amount of clips on YouTube & other web presence she has
264:
One old newspaper interview is hardly facts for notability. Perhaps her lads' mag underwear poses & thousands of screencaps on quiz tv forums is the basis for notability today! This person was picked for deletion as one of the main culprits who almost prostituted themselves to ITV to get money
242:
Pages are judged on their own merit, not on what happens to other pages. The fact that this was nominated for deletion before (not that I can see it in the logs) is also irrelevant; on the one hand you can argue that people want to get rid of it, on the other, you can argue that this implies that
307:
My point summed up rather well by another. Have nothing against her personally, but if she is worthy of deletion, all other non-notable call-in TV Quiz
Presenters (ie the lot...) should go the same way. Knowledge is not a fan site or a place for a CV as this entry appeared to be.
223:
by bertsquirrel - was any quiz presenter on after midnight on ITV1 ever notable? the fact that nominated for deletion before shows they are not. other presenters (ie Anna Fowler) rightly got deleted ages ago, yet she has a web presence too. That's why I nominated it. - You
185:
on any terrestrial channel" is not a reason for deletion; people may be notable even after they are no longer on the air. Notability is not temporary. I found at least one source about her from a newspaper in Wales
206:- The fact that a subject is no longer notable is not reason to delete. Once notability is established, notability remains. If this person was notable, then the article should not be deleted. -
130:
97:
92:
101:
243:
consensus opposed deleting it. To avoid this, the fact that articles have been considered previously for deletion is not a criterion for deletion -
84:
137:
time to remove failed Quiz show presenters who are now not on any terrestrial channel & are not up to
Notability Knowledge standards.
333:
156:
17:
341:
317:
299:
274:
252:
233:
215:
198:
160:
66:
194:
350:
Have reverted page detail to what it was just before deletion notice. Doesn't look a person of no worthy note to me.
286:. That said, I should like to state that this does not endorse the reason given by the nom, which was that she was
88:
363:
36:
362:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
337:
80:
72:
313:
270:
229:
190:
152:
309:
266:
225:
148:
329:
144:
295:
248:
211:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
62:
58:
291:
244:
207:
283:
175:
118:
187:
51:
140:
A person being only on in-store TV promo advert is hardly
Notable!
356:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
125:
114:
110:
106:
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
366:). No further edits should be made to this page.
8:
7:
171:fixed malformed listing (please use
24:
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
318:22:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
300:21:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
275:04:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
253:00:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
234:00:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
216:23:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
199:23:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
161:21:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
383:
342:04:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
189:. More may be available.
67:16:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
359:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
181:). Also note that "not
81:Alex Kramer (presenter)
73:Alex Kramer (presenter)
344:
332:comment added by
164:
147:comment added by
65:
374:
361:
327:
180:
174:
163:
141:
128:
122:
104:
57:
54:
34:
382:
381:
377:
376:
375:
373:
372:
371:
370:
364:deletion review
357:
178:
172:
142:
124:
95:
79:
76:
52:
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
380:
378:
369:
368:
352:
351:
345:
320:
302:
277:
258:
257:
256:
255:
237:
236:
218:
201:
135:
134:
75:
70:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
379:
367:
365:
360:
354:
353:
349:
346:
343:
339:
335:
334:81.151.99.129
331:
324:
321:
319:
315:
311:
306:
303:
301:
297:
293:
289:
285:
281:
278:
276:
272:
268:
263:
260:
259:
254:
250:
246:
241:
240:
239:
238:
235:
231:
227:
222:
219:
217:
213:
209:
205:
202:
200:
196:
192:
188:
184:
177:
170:
167:
166:
165:
162:
158:
154:
150:
146:
138:
132:
127:
120:
116:
112:
108:
103:
99:
94:
90:
86:
82:
78:
77:
74:
71:
69:
68:
64:
60:
56:
55:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
358:
355:
347:
322:
310:Bertsquirrel
304:
287:
279:
267:Bertsquirrel
261:
226:Bertsquirrel
220:
203:
182:
168:
149:Bertsquirrel
143:— Preceding
139:
136:
50:
46:No consensus
45:
43:
31:
28:
328:—Preceding
290:notable. -
63:count/logs
292:Fritzpoll
288:no longer
245:Fritzpoll
208:Fritzpoll
330:unsigned
157:contribs
145:unsigned
131:View log
348:Comment
262:Comment
224:decide.
221:Comment
204:Comment
169:Comment
98:protect
93:history
305:Delete
284:WP:BIO
280:Delete
126:delete
102:delete
129:) – (
119:views
111:watch
107:links
53:Jerry
16:<
338:talk
323:Keep
314:talk
296:talk
271:talk
249:talk
230:talk
212:talk
195:talk
176:afd2
153:talk
115:logs
89:talk
85:edit
59:talk
191:cab
183:now
340:)
316:)
298:)
273:)
251:)
232:)
214:)
197:)
179:}}
173:{{
159:)
155:•
117:|
113:|
109:|
105:|
100:|
96:|
91:|
87:|
61:¤
336:(
312:(
294:(
269:(
247:(
228:(
210:(
193:(
151:(
133:)
123:(
121:)
83:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.