Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Kriski


 * 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. North America1000 11:22, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Mark Kriski

 * – ( View AfD View log )

WP:BLP of a television meteorologist, not properly referenced as passing our notability criteria for meteorologists. The stated notability claim here, various awards for his work, is not referenced at all, while instead the few actual references in the article are supporting personal life trivia like the name and career of his ex-wife, his subsequent engagement and remarriage to his second wife, and a short-term health leave that he took ten years ago -- but even that is referenced to sources like his own employer or unreliable sources (blogs, industry trade newsletters) that aren't support for notability at all. And on a search for better sources, I found absolutely nothing in ProQuest to support notability in his 1980s Canadian career before joining KTLA, and on a Google search I get (a) sources published by KTLA, (b) glancing namechecks of his existence in sources that aren't about him, and (c) one article in an independent source about his sick leave, which still isn't enough coverage to get him over the bar all by itself. So I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with better access to archived American media coverage than I've got can salvage it with older sourcing that may not have Googled well, but nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have significantly more and better sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 18:25, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:25, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:25, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:25, 29 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment. He appears to have made a lot of cameo appearances in television shows portraying a weatherman; all of which is found in google books. Not sure if that lends notability, but generally unknown television reporters don't get hired to do cameo work.4meter4 (talk) 01:13, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * You're correct, Kriski is well known (I watch the morning news every day) here in southern Calif.
 * "Well-known in one local market" is not the inclusion criteria for television personalities — everybody on any local newscast is always "well-known" in their own local market by definition, but we don't want a bad and poorly sourced article about every local television journalist on the planet. The inclusion test requires evidence of nationalized significance, not just Angelenos saying they know him from watching LA's local news. Bearcat (talk) 22:57, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I wasn't referring to a local market. He's been in major TV shows (like a recurring role as a weatherman/reporter on Buffy the Vampire Slayer) and films with a wide international audience. But again, I'm not claiming that makes him notable, just makes me hesitant to argue for deletion.4meter4 (talk) 21:28, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Bit parts in films and television shows don't help to establish notability if they haven't made him the subject of reliable source coverage to support an article with. Bearcat (talk) 13:25, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 03:36, 7 October 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  10:38, 14 October 2021 (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.