Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melissa Crabtree


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 02:08, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Melissa Crabtree

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

I created this article about a local news woman in Florida working for Central Florida News 13 as I felt it would be a good idea. However, I'm now beggining to think that this article does not need to be on Wikipedia due to the fact that Crabtree is only local and not national. What do you think?

Before I end what I have to say, I feel the below article on a local weather anchor in Chicago which I also created an article about faces the same issues that Melissa Crabtree faces: — Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 02:24, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - It's okay to have articles about very local personalities but it's essential to provide three independent indications of notability. In this case it will generally mean three non-Central Florida News 13 mentions, but a news story from that source saying (for example) that some mayor or organization gave her an award would probably be acceptable too.  As this article is now it should almost certainly be deleted, but if improved along the lines I suggest it should probably stay. I suggest you do a web search of her name and see what comes up. Boston (talk) 02:50, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Where do you get the figure three from, Boston? WP:N says "The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred" but I don't recall coming across three as a benchmark before. Olaf Davis | Talk 13:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think I imagined it. Maybe it's a relic of memory from previous policy?  At any rate, thanks for pointing out the inaccuracy.  Boston (talk) 17:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Though there are enough policies, guidelines, essays, statements of precedent etc. that it could well say that somewhere too. Anyway, Boston's central point is sound: the article has a place if we can find some significant mentions in independent sources; otherwise, it's currently delete-worthy. Olaf Davis | Talk 08:39, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions.   -- Raven1977 (talk) 05:59, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions.   -- Raven1977 (talk) 05:59, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete local news staff are not notable usually. It takes an award, or something similar. As I understand the numerical benchmark, it's ordinarily two, not three--multiple being interpreted very loosely. Personally, I think it depends not on the number, but rather what is said in the article, beyond the toutine coverage can be assumed to be PR. Anyway, its irrreevant here, because the number for this article is zero. DGG (talk) 05:23, 9 December 2008 (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.