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 Convert to disambiguation. Consensus is that in the present state, the article is mostly redundant to more specific concepts and thus can serve as a disambiguation, especially since it's poorly written in its current state. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:14, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Presenter[edit]

Presenter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced WP:DICDEF and content fork of all the other types of presenter. If kept, maybe this could be reduced to a dab page. --woodensuperman 10:32, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I'm not going to comment vote here as I see that I first created the article in 2002, when there were not a whole lot of articles on the encyclopedia. I agree that disambiguation is probably a good idea - I see that the original content referred only to television presenters. I think the present wording is actually misleading about what constitutes a presenter. Deb (talk) 10:35, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, the nominator is trying elsewhere to get journalists on television called entertainers. This article is one of the links used to show that journalists are journalists and not televised entertainers. If I'm wrong and this is done in good faith, my apologies, but the timing raises the question. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:32, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No I'm not, and it has absolutely nothing to do with it. Please strike your bad faith accusations. --woodensuperman 11:36, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you say so, then sure. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:40, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"This article is one of the links used to show that journalists are journalists and not televised entertainers" seems irrelevant to the nomination and does not seem like a reason to keep to me, especially seeing as the entire article has no sources, and better articles on the topics, including news presenters exist elsewhere. It's like you're !voting to keep purely to push your own agenda. --woodensuperman 11:45, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Interested editors may want to read Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates#WP:PERFNAV and its relationship to news anchors/presenters to decipher whatever the hell Randy is on about. --woodensuperman 12:00, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are in good faith saying you don't know "whatever the hell Randy is on about" and then link to the discussion where this page is linked to whatever the hell I'm on about. Please strike your inaccurate "____ever the hell" (just kidding, no need to strike, especially if you really don't know). But this page is fine and is a notable topic, it just needs a few sources and some editing. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:15, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 May 30. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:17, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – Notable topic which is distinctly different from journalists and news presenters and is useful for linking. If there are problems with the article then this can be addressed through normal editing not deletion, WP:SOFIXIT. Tanbircdq (talk) 17:38, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or DAB (secondary): Not notable. One reference (a glossary) for a 492 word article means there is a lot of original research or close paraphrasing. I am continually amazed when I see someone !voting "keep" and commenting SOFIXIT. "If" notability is contested by one it is silly to then comment there is notability (with one reference) so anyone !voting delete needs to fix the article. This seems like a two-way street. Otr500 (talk) 03:19, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The topic is notable per se. It is a class of individuals recognizable by the name. The page is pretty straight-forward information, so original research, at most, pertains to the words used as descriptors. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:41, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: I am leaning more towards delete because the entire concept, according to references, is confusing at best. There is a lead with a feeble attempt to give a nondescript dictionary explanation while eluding an important aspect that this is a chiefly British term. Why is that not in the lead? The lead deals with two different aspects. A "presenter" as an individual, and a "presenter" as an organization, yet there is nothing in the article (list) concerning the second. The lead is a summary of what is found in the body of an article but this is absent.

"Notable per se" is subjective. This is, in my opinion, wrongly classed and should be a "list-class" if not a DAB because the definition of a glossary would be "a list". As an article this just "presents" things that are already covered on Wikipedia and if not copied, the content, other than "main" links, give evidence of OR but that is a different issue. Notability is not advanced by a reference that is a glossary, specifically K-O from a Public Speaking Course. Being "useful for linking" might be a good argument for ignoring the "rules" but I do not think that will extend to going against any of of the five pillars. I would need something more substantial to even understand what we are trying to present here. Otr500 (talk) 08:47, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and recategorise as a dab or list page. There should be something here at such a likely search term. SpinningSpark 14:21, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Change to disambiguation page. I'm not sure there's much to say about presenters in general that wouldn't be covered either in a dictionary definition or in the more specific examples of Television presenter and news presenter etc. We certainly should have something at this page, not just a redlink, so dab page between the "main articles" already mentioned seems good.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:57, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.