Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matt Taylor (meteorologist)


 * 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 no consensus. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 21:42, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Matt Taylor (meterologist)
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Although a well known weather forecaster and meteorologist, there are no links or reliable sources to support this article. There is definitely potential, but not as it stands.  - Funky Snack  ( Talk ) 10:37, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:27, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:27, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:27, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:28, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: This needs more input
 * Keep - as the nominator says, he is a well known weather forecaster. Vorbee (talk) 16:32, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Coincidentally, on the afternoon after I typed these words, the next weather forecaster I heard on BBC Radio 4 was Matt Taylor. Is this an example of what Jung called synchronicity? Vorbee (talk) 17:02, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment -- the nominator hasn't really given a reason for deletion, just suggesting that the article needs improvement. I don't think AfD is an appropriate place to take articles needing improvement. matt91486 (talk) 05:19, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Rillington (talk) 15:20, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 'Comment. This article has been lacking information for sometime with no additional information or citations being added. If more information can be provided, there is scope for the article to remain. At the moment, the article fails WP:GNG. There is an ongoing discussion re a few meteorologists at the moment with the argument that they warrant an article "due to their job". This isn't the case, as with all articles, the information must be there if the article is to remain. I'm sure would be happy to explain this better than me.  -  Funky Snack  ( Talk ) 08:36, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. The notability test for weather presenters is not just the ability to verify that they exist, by virtue of a staff profile on their employer's website or your sworn affidavit that you've personally just heard them doing their job with your own earholes: just like people in any other occupation, the notability test is always still the ability to get them over WP:GNG as the subject of significant and substantive reliable source coverage about them, in media that don't sign their paycheques. The notability test for people is never just the ability to use their own primary source web presence as technical verification that he exists: it always requires journalists to be writing and publishing content about him and his work. On a Google search, however, all I can find is a one-day blip of WP:BLP1E coverage about two months ago when he caught a lighting rig that was about to fall on him live on the air — but that's not enough, because what we need is ongoing coverage of a variety of aspects of his career, not just 10,000 reprints of the same story about a single viral moment. And he's not exempted from having to get over GNG just because you've heard him on the radio, either: not everybody on earth lives in the UK, so many more people have not heard him on the radio than have. Bearcat (talk) 13:21, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - As the nominator says, he is a well known weather forecaster and there is no issue with this article not passing WP:GNG but the article does need more independent sources. Rillington (talk) 15:20, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment and question. Matt Taylor has done the five-day weather forecast on the BBC One series Countryfile. Does this make him notable enough to have an entry in Wikipedia? Vorbee (talk) 19:16, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment It underlines his notability as he has presented the weather on the BBC for many years. Rillington (talk) 02:54, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. I think we're all missing the point here. Just because he is on TV doesn't mean he is automatically entitled to an article. The article fails WP:GNG and this is not OK, despite saying there is no issue. More RS need to be provided for this article to remain.  - Funky Snack  ( Talk ) 08:24, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:12, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Funky Snack, I'd like to respectfully suggest that rather than simply nominating articles for deletion which you feel do not comply with Wikipedia rules, that you instead try to address the issues that you have, for example with this article by trying to find additional references as I did with several of the previous articles that you nominated for deletion. Rillington (talk) 13:00, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. There is clearly a lot wrong with this article. It has remained minimal for sometime and was given a number of chances to have stuff added, but this didn't happen. You seem to have created quite a few articles which you seem to be upset that are being nominated for deletion. Articles must meet WP:GNG, and this article clearly doesn't.  - Funky Snack  ( Talk ) 14:46, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment So why don't you attempt to improve this, or any other article, when you think it isn't up to scratch rather than merely nominating it for deletion? Rillington (talk) 20:03, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I think it's not fair to say it clearly doesn't. In just a glancing search, it's clear that he's gotten coverage in various sources   . I don't say that this is definitive one way or another, but it's clear that sources not affiliated with the BBC do talk about him and his work -- indicating that it's at worst a debatable case. matt91486 (talk) 05:54, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for finding those sources. I have incorporated them into the article. Rillington (talk) 09:57, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Once again, you seem to be missing the point. This article has remained "bare" since its creation, and in 2016 was asked for more information to be added. This hasn't happened and remains very minimal. I'm not withdrawing the nomination, as the issue remains. There are no reliable sources.  - Funky Snack  ( Talk ) 08:49, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I wasn't asking you to withdraw this article, which now contains two new independent references. Instead I am respectfully challenging you to consider changing your approach to articles which you feel are not currently following guidelines by asking you to try to improve these articles rather than merely nominating them for deletion. Rillington (talk) 09:57, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I am simply following Wikipedia guidelines. If an article has no reliable sources or anything to support the need for an article, it gets nominated for deletion. See WP:AFDEQ. Like I said, this article was given a chance in 2016 for more to be added, and it didn't happen. To be honest, I'm very surprised the article has lasted as long as it has with nothing proving as a reliable source. May I request that you let the AfD discussion continue and to let editors nominate articles for deletion which don't meet the Wikipedia requirements.  - Funky Snack  ( Talk ) 11:30, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * You keep saying that "the article was given a chance in 2016". I genuinely don't know what this means. It seems to imply that there was some sort of AfD debate about it at that time, which if there was, was not linked to in the nomination. If you just mean it was tagged, articles are tagged all the time, but this hardly means "giving it a chance".  And as far as I'm aware, duration of time with a tag is not a reason for deletion. matt91486 (talk) 23:29, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Delete. There is nothing to go by on this article and it has been given a chance to be improved but it doesn't look like it has. 132.185.160.131 (talk) 11:04, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment, this article was created as an unsourced stub in july 2006, it remained uncited for almost 10 years when the refimprove tag (actually should have been a no ref tag) was added, had one source added in March 2017 (that did nothing for notability). it has taken this afd, over 2 years later to have any more sources added (again not supporting wikinotability), so yes, there has been plenty of time and opportunity for improvements to be made. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:39, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete, does not meet WP:ANYBIO, although having a successful career with the met office and the BBC, Taylor does not appear to have made achievements that tick any wikinotable boxes. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:52, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. A well-known national weather presenter and a Fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society . If it doesn't satisfy the GNG then that suggests that the GNG isn't fit for purpose as an overriding criterion for inclusion (which it clearly isn't). --Michig (talk) 08:23, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. a weatherman who is a national figure.  And Now, The Weather...: A celebration of our national obsession Random House 2017.[[User:E.M.Gregory|E.M.Gregory] (talk) 16:35, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep as a case of WP:NEXIST notable subject on national/international broadcast. Lightburst (talk) 18:35, 3 July 2019 (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.