Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Joyce (2nd nomination)

:{{la|Tim Joyce}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tim_Joyce_(2nd_nomination) Stats])

:({{Find sources|Tim Joyce}})

Still believe that this meteorologist is non-notable per WP:BIO. Previous AfD was closed as no consensus. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 18:05, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

• Delete - The past discussion didn't reach consensus, but it shouldn't have been closed either, the article didn't establish notability furthermore it should be deleted. Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 18:20, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
• Delete - The fact that we have documented he is an onair personality does not necessarily confer WP:N.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:41, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
• Keep - GNG pass based on multiple substantial and independently published sources already showing in footnotes. Carrite (talk) 01:16, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
• If you had looked closer, nearly all are dead links and thus cannot help verify notability. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 02:33, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
• Look again. Almost all of the dead links have been fixed. SJ Morg (talk) 08:10, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
• See also WP:DEADLINK. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:37, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
• I don't know what the hell I was thinking then...I probably shouldn't try to edit while agonizing over KU basketball. =P Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 12:43, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
• Keep per Carrite. Also, I disagree with TonyTheTiger. The fact that he is an on-air personality in two major television markets, Seattle and Portland, is enough for GNG, even if he were not one of the very few openly gay TV journalists in the Pacific Northwest, a detail that just adds to his notability. And the article cites several independent sources. SJ Morg (talk) 08:10, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:14, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

• Keep - am I right in assuming the nominator's concerns have now been somewhat resolved? Stalwart111 01:26, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
• Keep. Meets GNG. Insomesia (talk) 13:28, 19 February 2013 (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.