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. -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:37, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Danielle Dozier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

My PROD was removed with absolutely no explanations despite it being concurred with by k.e.coffman, ai still confirm everything I said, noting st all convincing here. SwisterTwister talk 02:27, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- Same comment as at the PROD: "non notable TV announcer". Sourcing does not suggest notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:34, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per GNG. Aside from some modest attention for being startled on-air by an earthquake, I'm not seeing anything close to the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources we require. Rebbing 08:09, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete local meteorologists are almost never notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:44, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Local meteorologists should be notable, especially those who are severe weather experts and help keep people safe during extreme weather events. Plus, there are too many to count local news personalities/meteorologists who have Wikipedia pages with far less credentials than Dozier.Abc300900 (talk) 00:12, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:OTHERSTUFF. —Wyliepedia (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:52, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:54, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:54, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per WP:GNG. Obviously does not meet the criterion per WP:N. Most of the sources provided cover other stories and are in no ways providing coverage on the article subject in-depth, which is what is looked for when determining if and when a subject meets WP:GNG. In this case, this person definitely falls short; nothing significant exists that establish notability per the guidelines cited. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:16, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep  On air personalities with a biography are the very definition of Wikipedia notability (attracts the attention of the world at large).  This topic seems to have a decent article to go along, although it could use some trimming.  Alternately, merge to Current and former WXIN on-air personalities, as this is a set where notability is a fairly minor issue for inclusion, and way too much effort is being expended on a point that can be side stepped.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:57, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete aside from the earthquake flap, all coverage appears to be WP:Routine. Lepricavark (talk) 01:49, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. non notable local meteorologist -- Such people do not attract the attention of the world at large -- unless of courwe they manage to get a WP biography. We a not here for promotion . DGG ( talk ) 17:16, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.