Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nina Ridge
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. - Mailer Diablo 16:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
nonrelevant topic, article has empty content--Jestix 15:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. There are plenty of other television weather forecasters who are notable. I think she is as well. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 10:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Are *all* weather forecasters notable? Isn't this maybe a glitch in the wikipedia relevance criterias. I don't see them as relevant at all, since except presenting the wheater non of them had any influence at all. most of the articles consist of: [name] is a presenter at [station] from [time] to [time]. He was born [place] at [time]. hes wheter forecast appeared weekly at [time]. And this going to be for all of the 100oo.. wheterforecaster faces that exist in this world? --Jestix 11:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No. Delete. Eusebeus 13:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- "I think she is notable." is a subjective judgement, not the employment of a notability criterion. Notability is not subjective. Uncle G 15:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Are *all* weather forecasters notable? Isn't this maybe a glitch in the wikipedia relevance criterias. I don't see them as relevant at all, since except presenting the wheater non of them had any influence at all. most of the articles consist of: [name] is a presenter at [station] from [time] to [time]. He was born [place] at [time]. hes wheter forecast appeared weekly at [time]. And this going to be for all of the 100oo.. wheterforecaster faces that exist in this world? --Jestix 11:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Our criteria for biographical articles are laid out in WP:BIO. Per the article, as it currently stands, this person satisfies none of them. Uncle G 15:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 11:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per WP:BIO Dlyons493 Talk 16:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete too stubby. Tell us why she is notable among weather forecasters. Maybe she used to be a Miss England or something, maybe she's also a professional female wrestler who served time in prison for killing her husband... Wjhonson 18:00, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per all of the above. Her name generates just 618 hits on Google. Google "Nishkid64" and you even get more hits haha...and I'm not even notable. --Nishkid64 18:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- My name gets 16300 results on Google Web, and I'm not verifiable. Counting Google hits is not research. Reading those 618 web pages (which might well be detailed independent biographies of this person, for all that anyone who just counts hits knows) is research. Uncle G 15:01, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as unverifiable, and go through this list as well. --Thunderhead 19:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - see also Elizabeth Saary and Philip Avery for similar stubby articles. The JPStalk to me 23:15, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not notable for being, no notability for doing either. Unless she's a sex-symbol with a cult following which I don't know about, there's nothing on her BBC bio which points to notability per WP:BIO. Ohconfucius 06:03, 21 August 2006 (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.