Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jessica Thomale


 * 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 11:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Jessica Thomale

 * — (View AfD)

It's not clear that this person is significant or notable; No details are given about significant achievements or contributions to society. There's no sign of any sort of peer-reviewed publication or widely available or known work, or of anything significant that she's done or produced. I thought it best to bring it here to see if others shared my view or not. Mnemopis 22:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete No assertion of notability. One Night In Hackney 03:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete, the only useful reference I could find was an entry in The Impact of Unique Meteorological Phenomena Detected by the Oklahoma Mesonet and ARS Micronet on Automated Quality Control (Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society) where she receives an acknowledgment as system operator. If there is more please include it by end of this AfD Alf photoman 16:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Being mentioned in passing as a system operator (per Alf) isn't notable.  The article's only claim of notability is that her tornado forecasts "helped save many lives from highly-effective advance public warnings."  While I hope that warnings never kill me, the verifiability policy requires content to be verifiable through reliable sources.  If no BAMS papers or newspaper feature articles back up the "save(d) many lives" claim, we're left with nothing notable enough for an encyclopedia article.  See the WP:BIO guideline.  Barno 17:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete There is nothing in the article that is verifiable, or indeed, has any reliable sources, so there's nothing left to make this an encyclopedic article. --SunStar Nettalk 17:24, 8 January 2007 (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.