Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bob Johnson (weatherman)
Source: 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 keep. ¿¡Exir Kamalabadi?!Join Esperanza! 05:11, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bob Johnson (weatherman)
No references, seems like an autobiography, and doesnt seem like an encyclopaedic figure anyway. Runningonbrains 19:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Looks like if I had done a quick google search, I would have found that it was a copyvio as well, copied from one of those sources! However, it does appear that the article can stay...I am concerned about the notability, as keeping this might make us keep a bunch of bios whos only source of notability is being a rich broadcast meteorologist who has a lot of websites written about him. -Runningonbrains 00:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yet another comment It appears more obscure bios are floating around Wikipedia. I change my vote to keep, I'm pretty sure theres no way to withdraw a nomination, but I'd just like to say the improvements made have been more than satisfactory. -Runningonbrains 16:10, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Looks like if I had done a quick google search, I would have found that it was a copyvio as well, copied from one of those sources! However, it does appear that the article can stay...I am concerned about the notability, as keeping this might make us keep a bunch of bios whos only source of notability is being a rich broadcast meteorologist who has a lot of websites written about him. -Runningonbrains 00:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It certainly does need tidying and rewriting (tone problems), but he certainly is well known in North East England as an established broadcaster. I'll have a stab at redoing this (hmmm, example fo AFD as emergency clean-up). The JPStalk to me 20:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Just done a massive rework on this, and I think it's now of an acceptable standard. The JPStalk to me 20:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No assertion of notability. TJ Spyke 20:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Mmmm, yes there is... The JPStalk to me 20:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It has plenty of references, which should be enough to glean information from and form a good article. EliasAlucard|Talk 23:47, 24 Oct, 2006 (UTC)
- Keep He's a fairly well known local television celebrity in NE England. The article could make this clearer, though. ProhibitOnions (T) 21:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. While usually I consider notability a criterion for deletion, the amount of referencing makes me pause. While the assertion of notability is minor, it is plausible. Titoxd(?!?) 23:24, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per above. Most US television weather personalities have articles, so we should not be US-centric when we don't need to be. CrazyC83 02:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. He's pretty darn famous. Its not just America-centrism thats a problem here its also southern England bias--Josquius 15:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep He is very well known throughout North East England, I definately say keep. --GracieLizzie 22:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - how can such a fine upstanding member of the dying breed of good quality broadcasters not have a Wikipedia article? Superbfc 22:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Bob Johnson is a household name in North East England. SAFCjl 22:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete. I'm sure he's a nice person, but the references in this article are not sufficient for me, as I saw no indication of his being notable outside of his immediate local area, and most of the references looked like corporate press releases instead of legitimate press. A Google search seems to be fairly weak as well, with fewer than 1000 hits [1]. Just how exactly are people saying that he meets ]
- Elonka, I take - maybe not offence - but certainly disapproval of your reference to "immediate local area" - you might come from a fanatastic large country and think that a British region of some "few" millions of people is only an "immediate local area", but in the real world, i.e. the non-American corporate media bubble, the North East of England is a fairly significant area with proud history and people, and Bob Johnson is one of its most respected broadcasters and a household name to millions. And I say all this as a non-native resident of the region. At the end of the day, I certainly think Johnson qualifies under the "cult" status of the Superbfc 18:35, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I mean no disrespect to Mr. Johnson, nor to England (where I myself lived for three years, and enjoyed it very much). However, in order to prove a subject's notability, we need more than statements such as "household name". On Wikipedia, a verbal vouching is not sufficient to prove notability -- it is necessary to provide verifiable external references, per WP:V. To my knowledge, no such references have been provided, to prove that Mr. Johnson is "famous", or that he has a large enough of a fanbase to qualify for notability. I've looking through news sites, I've Googled, I've been doing my own research, and I just haven't found anything. If you can provide verifiable references which prove his fame, I am open to reviewing them, but until then, my opinion stands. --Elonka 20:35, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- We don't tend to include forums as ELs, but [2] is at least one where he is asmiringly discussed. The JPStalk to me 20:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- And a half a dozen messages on a forum from three years ago, are not convincing. Show me multiple fansites, with thousands of fans discussing him on a daily basis, and I'll change my mind. --Elonka 20:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- lol. How did I know you were going to respond like that ;) Someone doesn't need multiple fansites to be notable; the existence of some geocities or myspace page is a poor second to the reliable sources cited. That link to the forum is sufficient for proving that he's notable enough to be discussed. Check out Category:Television meteorologists and look at all those articles, such as Storm Field, for instance. Most have no references, or even links, at all. Wikipedia is not paper. There are sufficient references in the article to verify Johnson's existence and that he's been covered by independent sources. He's broadcast regularly to around 2 million viewers for over 15 years. That is notable. The JPStalk to me 21:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- And a half a dozen messages on a forum from three years ago, are not convincing. Show me multiple fansites, with thousands of fans discussing him on a daily basis, and I'll change my mind. --Elonka 20:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- We don't tend to include forums as ELs, but [2] is at least one where he is asmiringly discussed. The JPStalk to me 20:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I mean no disrespect to Mr. Johnson, nor to England (where I myself lived for three years, and enjoyed it very much). However, in order to prove a subject's notability, we need more than statements such as "household name". On Wikipedia, a verbal vouching is not sufficient to prove notability -- it is necessary to provide verifiable external references, per
- Elonka, I take - maybe not offence - but certainly disapproval of your reference to "immediate local area" - you might come from a fanatastic large country and think that a British region of some "few" millions of people is only an "immediate local area", but in the real world, i.e. the non-American corporate media bubble, the North East of England is a fairly significant area with proud history and people, and Bob Johnson is one of its most respected broadcasters and a household name to millions. And I say all this as a non-native resident of the region. At the end of the day, I certainly think Johnson qualifies under the "cult" status of the
- 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.