Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patty Souza

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. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:07, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Patty Souza

Fails WP:CREATIVE and WP:N. She has had a pedestrian career working as a weatherperson for local affiliate stations. Nothing notable about her career other than simply doing her job on a daily basis. Article tagged for having no sources since Nov. 2007. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:36, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 06:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep being part of the only duo of siblings to forecast weather on American television is notable. Article could use cleanup. --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 15:43, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Has there been significant, non-trivial coverage of this "notablility"? Or is it all mainly mentioned as a side note in a "welcome to (insert city here)" article? Niteshift36 (talk) 18:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Niteshift36. This person does not reach the threshold for inclusion do to lack of independent reliable sources. As a BLP the inclusuion criteria should be strictly enforced. FloNight ♥♥♥ 16:29, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient notability to meet guidelines. She's a meteorologist and we can verfiy that, but there no evidence of substantial coverage or significance beyond that fact. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:18, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My intuitions may not match everyone elses, but "only duo of siblings to forecast weather on American television" doesn't strike me as notable at all. Hairhorn (talk) 14:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Given that we know that career interests often are repeated in families, I agree that siblings being forecasters does not seem unusual. And since it is self reported on a profile page, I don't think that we should consider it a reliable source. I don't think that the information is deliberately a misrepresentation, but I also don't think we can know that it is a well researched and accurate fact. FloNight ♥♥♥ 18:43, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if it's true or not, but even if true, that seems more like a novelty to me than notability. Siblings having the same kind of job isn't an achievement. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:49, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Deletethe coincidence of sisters is not noteworthy, just as Flo says, even if it were well documented. No conceivable notability otherwise. DGG (talk) 21:41, 20 June 2009 (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.