Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tammie Souza


 * 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. Flowerparty ☀ 17:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Tammie Souza

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

Fails WP:N and WP:CREATIVE. No assertion of notability other than having a job. Her career has been at local affiliates and small parts in movies and TV, like the part of "good looking woman". Nothing here seperates her from hundreds of other hard-working, yet not notable meteorologists on local affilates in the rest of the US. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep someone who has worked in market(s) with millions of people in it is definitely notable. Why do small-town mayors get Wikipedia articles when they would fall under the same criteria? --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 15:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * See WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:23, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep I think this article, and this person, are no less notable than any of the many similar articles on Wikipedia. We must remember that Wikipedia is more dynamic than a traditional encyclopedia; it bears the practicality of dynamic updates and constant peer review; as well as infinite space. I'd also like to point out that while the article claims "no assertion of notability other than having a job" Ms. Souza sits on the American Meteorological Society's Certified Broadcast Meteorologist Certification Board, which does make her significantly more notable than the majority of other broadcast meteorologists out there. In addition, many other meteorologists in smaller markets with less prestigious credentials have Wikipedia entries. It is my opinion that this article is notable and deserves to stay. 24.3.223.164 (talk) 21:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: I think it's worth pointing out that the above IP editor has made 18 edits to Wikipedia and 14 of them are concerning Tammie Souza. 2 of the others are arguing about journalists in the TV project and one is for an AfD of another Tampa area anchorman. I know I should WP:AGF, but I'm starting to suspect a WP:COI or worse. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:51, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Other things exist and big numbers are indeed big, but biographies of living persons have an obvious and serious possibility of harm to the subject. With no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, we should not have an article on this person. Working in a certain industry doesn't change that. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 22:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete nn broadcaster and former actress. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 23:08, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The above is noted, however "peer recognition" from the same article is clearly satisfied. This is a case of too many cooks in the broth; I am not a doctor and do not edit or dispute notability on articles regarding medicine. I am an operations manager in the broadcast sector and to me, Wikipedia is a reliable authority on personalities past and present. Again, I will reiterate that plenty of broadcasters, actors and former actors have pages here; and that Souza's position on the AMS board distinguishes her from the majority of the others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.3.223.164 (talk) 23:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * She's certified in her profession as able to perform that profession. Doctors aren't notable for having doctorates, lawyers aren't notable for passing the bar, union members aren't notable for joining their union. How is this different? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 23:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I respect where you are coming from, however I said she was notable because she sits on the board that certified CBMs, not because she was certified herself-- she's among the panel that decides if a meteorologist will make the cut, and has a say in whether or not he or she actually attains certification. If a doctor is on a Board of Directors for JCAHO, for example, that would be considered notable. The AMS is a widely respected, national organization and I feel that it's worth noting-- going back to the peer recognition aspect. The article now mentions the fact that Souza and her sister are the only "sibling broadcast meteorologists" on air in the country, further separating her from less notable peers. 24.3.223.164 (talk) 01:02, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Has any reliable, independent source commented on this position of supposed authority? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 02:51, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * So by your logic, people who sit on the state medical licensing board should be notable? Niteshift36 (talk) 04:22, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep What everyone else who said "Keep" said. StephenWeinstein (talk) 23:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep After weighing the arguments, she is a very weak keeper based on her board positions. Since, I can not really fathom another way for a meteorologist who is not on a national broadcast to be notable, I guess that will suffice.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Tony, do you know what it takes to get that certification? I didn't so I looked. Have a degree, get 75% on a 100 question test and submit a demo tapes. What important role does the board have? Correcting the test or watching people's demo tapes? I'm not seeing the importance of the board position. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: I think that it's worth noting that half the keep votes, including the article author user:CFIF really amount to WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Several have said "others have articles" as their reasoning. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:05, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong delete I'm not seeing a good indication of notability. We can verify that she's a meteorologist. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:03, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per passing WP:GNG and WP:BIO as a 3-time Chicago Emmy winner (not exactly a tiny town) who has been covered in more-than-trivial fashion by reliable sources for 11 years... and yes, in relationship to her professional field. Some examples: Herald News (2003), Daily Herald (2003), Daily Herald (2003), Daily Herald (2003), Daily Herald (2004), Chicaho Sun-Times (2006), Tampa Tribune (2008), etc. There's more and yes, the article need proper sourcing. But that's a matter for WP:CLEANUP, not deletion.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 08:25, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Notice "Chicago" emmy.......in other words local. Could a reporter in LA win it? And that "coverage" is trivial. One of them was her talking to a local second grade class. Come on guy........do you honestly consider talking to a group of 8 year olds to be notable coverage? Another was an announcement in the LOCAL paper that she got hired by the LOCAL station. Where is the notability in that? Niteshift36 (talk) 08:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Why does someone need national coverage to be notable? I think your badgering of anyone votes "Keep" and their reasoning borders on rudeness & incivility. Let people have their say. --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 17:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)'


 * Comment After using essays to disparage other's opinions, the nom involves in WP:WAX arguments. No sale. A 3 4-time Chicago Emmy winner is a pretty big deal. Notability for a few dozen million in a major section of the United States is just as worthy as notability for 300 million. Guideline does not mandate "national" or "global" coverage. It does encourage a BLP ro be as comprehensive as possible, so an announcement that she was hired to perform her asserted profession is required WP:Verification per guideline. And the WP:GNG does not state the significant coverage in reliable sources be of some eart-shaking importance, so coverage of her continued work with children also is proper per guideline. She meets the WP:GNG and WP:BIO despite WP:IDONTLIKEIT.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 17:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * There is nothing prohibiting the debate of points that are made that I disagree with. If you call a story about her talking to a local second grade class "non-trivial" coverage and I disagree with that, I am fully allowed to express my disagreement. There is nothing uncivil about that. You are having your say. Nobody is censoring you. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:38, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You are certanly entitled to your "opinion". My own opinion is supported by guideline and policy and not just essay.  The assertion of being a 4-time Emmy Winner in the third-most populous city in the U.S. is not exactly trivial, and specifically meets the inclusion critera of WP:ANYBIO... like it or not.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:08, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Maybe you simply aren't used to people disagreeing with you or disputing what your contention is. I don't find a piece about spending an hour talking to a local 2nd grade class "non-trivial coverage". Nor do I find a small piece announcing her hire to be non-trivial. This is supposed to be a discussion. That means there can be back and forth. That means I can respond. Just because you don't like my response or the fact that I don't agree doesn't make me uncivil. I haven't called you names, cursed you out or talked badly about your mother. I've simply responded to your points directly. If you find that to be uncivil....well then you have a different definition of the word than I do. Niteshift36 (talk) 11:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The WP:Policy WP:BLP mandates WP:Verification of facts. A claim that she was hired MUST be verified. WP:V does not demand that such simple verification be covered in-depth, only that the source meet WP:RS. If the simple fact of her being hired were itself the assertion of notability, that would be a different concern.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's keep cool heads and civility here please. There is no need to refer to someone's argument as their "opinion" in inverted commas; even if you think its wrongheaded. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 00:00, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Note to Closer: What was first nominated for deletion has been improved to THIS, now having properly asserted and sourced notability.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 22:48, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. She's only ever received local press coverage, which I'm not sure counts as significant, and those Emmy awards were regional Emmys, which are not major awards, are they? Trivia time: she was Miss Ramona 1979. Fences and windows (talk) 00:09, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Now THAT one is trivial. Thanks for the perspective and the good humor. In their own calling of the Emmy for that segemnt of the coutry "regional" acts only to seperate it from national. Chicago is the 3rd most populated city in the U.S. and the Chicago/Midwest Regional Emmys represent a major potion of the country. Ain't exactly a blue ribbon at a neighborhood bake-off.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q.
 * Weak keep. I'm swung, just. Fences and windows (talk) 20:01, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep on the basis of the awards; this is a distinction much more than most of the other TV meteorologists that have articles here. DGG (talk) 00:24, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep per improvement, sources and awards. Granite thump (talk) 18:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Evidently notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Sufficient coverage in reliable sources has been identified to establish notability. Davewild (talk) 16:46, 20 June 2009 (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.