Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samantha Mohr

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 keep. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 00:14, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Samantha Mohr

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

not notable broadcast meteorologist. routing career. DGG ( talk ) 08:10, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep References currently in article as of August 13 2015 clearly meet notability requirements.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:54, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A rundown of the references: 1. Ad Week (independent, non-trivial); 2. WXIA via USA Today (from the subject's employer); 3. CNN/HLN (the subject's then employer); 4. SFGate (independent but passing mention); 5. WXIA (same article at reference #1 #2). There's not enough here yet to pass GNG. A search for more sources show mentions of (possibly regional) Emmy awards. I will search further. • Gene93k (talk) 21:10, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That USA Today published something from WXIA does not render their report invalid for our purposes -- it is USA Today putting their editorial weight behind the article, and it clearly discusses Mohr in-depth, impartially, here. There is more coverage here. Also winning a Miss Georgia 1985 beauty title; plus winning awards such as an Emmy. Adds up to WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:54, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Local Emmys do not imply notability--we've deleted many articles with them. Most winners of Miss Georgia do ot have articles either. DGG ( talk ) 20:38, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There's a reason for WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST. With time and effort, all of these Miss America system state-level winners can be proven notable by Wikipedia standards and they'll have articles. Time is linear so some have to be created before the others and that they're not cranked out in batches of 50 at a time is best for everybody. - Dravecky (talk) 09:12, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: In addition to the various reliable online sources I've added to this article, there are also a number of offline sources that cover the subject in-depth. If you search NewsBank with '"Samantha Mohr" "Miss Georgia"' you'll find a number of lengthy Atlanta Journal-Constitution articles focused solely on Samantha Mohr. - Dravecky (talk) 04:26, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:37, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:21, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG & WP:BASIC, and Dravecky's sourcing & improvements to the article. Ejgreen77 (talk) 10:46, 27 August 2015 (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.