Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jennifer Lopez (meteorologist) (2nd nomination)


 * 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. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 14:21, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Jennifer Lopez (meteorologist)
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Whole article contains only one reference, taken from a biography on a KXAS website - which is no longer available. A few sources have been added to the article.

There is nothing particularly notable about her, other than the fact that she shares the same name as the American entertainer. — Statυs  (talk) 21:24, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Plenty of coverage in secondary sources:, , and are a few I found.  Her unfortunate overlap with J-Lo results makes it a little trickier to find sources, but they do exist. —Torchiest talkedits 01:51, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * How about beyond that? I don't see how a keep is justified with just adding a few additional references; one of which is basically her talking about sharing the same name as the American entertainer. — Statυs  (talk) 03:44, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe because it means that she passes WP:GNG? There is no other valid reason to delete the article. Till I Go Home (talk) 04:01, 5 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Per, WP:GNG, she "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", i.e., two different articles specifically about her, which is enough to keep. I don't see how anything beyond meeting that requirement is necessary. —Torchiest talkedits 04:17, 5 May 2012 (UTC)


 * As WP:NRVE states, "No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition..." Two of the three articles solely about her are based around how she has the same name as the entertainer, saying such things as: "Sure, Jennifer Lopez is an actress, singer, fashion diva, gossip magnet. But can J.Lo tell you tomorrow's high and low? It depends which one you ask. Meet another Jennifer Lopez." Now, I may just not be familiar with American meteorologists, but from what I can see, she has only gained coverage due to having the same name as the entertainer (Dang, I hate saying that repeatedly). — Statυs  (talk) 04:25, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Who cares. She has been the subject of significant coverage. It doesn't matter if it's because they discuss her having the same name as the entertainer. Till I Go Home (talk) 04:36, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia cares: "...and that this was not a mere short-term interest" It's quite evident the media only cared because they share the same time. It can have all the coverage it wants (which isn't even much), and it still remains the name. So, in your opinion, if someone who had a career (like most people do) that share the same name as celebrity that earns them some coverage, they should have an article on Wikipedia? — Statυs  (talk) 04:41, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If she was getting coverage because she has a sixth toe it wouldn't matter. If she has received coverage, she has received coverage, regardless of the reason. Of course the basis is that she is a meteorologist which is the focal point of coverage. And the answer to that question would be yes. Till I Go Home (talk) 04:52, 5 May 2012 (UTC)


 * She's received coverage because she's been a national TV personality, and it's not mere short term interest. The sources are from 2002, 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2012. The coincidence of names is mentioned for the simple sake of clarity. Some of the sources don't even mention it. —Torchiest talkedits 04:55, 5 May 2012 (UTC)


 * So, you're telling me that the LA Times was going to report about the meteorologist anyway, despite the fact that she shares the same name as the entertainer? You two are obviously not getting the point. The information in the article is taken from biographies from weather websites in which she has been affiliated (which would be considered a non-independent source, and articles about again, having the same name as the entertainer. — Statυs  (talk) 05:05, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * As Till I Go Home stated, that's mostly irrelevant, but I'm pretty sure the LA Times doesn't report on every woman in American named Jennifer Lopez. <B>—Torchiest</B> talk<sub style="margin-left:-3.5ex;">edits 05:22, 5 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep: and here are some more.   Did the nominator even try looking for sources? Till I Go Home (talk) 02:52, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, the nominator DID look for sources. I don't understand why you are talking to me indirectly, when we just encountered a problem together. <font face="Arial" size="2em">— Statυs  (talk) 03:44, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Because we judge notability on the sources available, not on the sources that are "in" the article at the time of its nomination. Till I Go Home (talk) 04:01, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

<hr style="width:55%;" />
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

<hr style="width:55%;" />
 * Keep Article does have significant coverage in more than one secondary verified source to satisfy WP:GNG ZachFoutre (talk) 13:29, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Struck per Articles for deletion/Birmingham Blue Coat School. Sorry, M. Ritzman. Uncle G (talk) 14:48, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. I mean this person is unnoticeable, she is just a meteorologist. She just has the same name as J-Lo. No need for staying this page on Wikipedia. — Tomica   (talk)  18:23, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * 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.