Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Deedler

: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. Current consensus is for deletion. And no, Wikipedia being number one in Google is not bad in some cases (especially on topics with few English sources; see Chrisye) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:42, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

=[[William Deedler]]=

:{{la|William Deedler}} – (View AfDView log{{•}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/William_Deedler Stats])

:({{Find sources|William Deedler}})

Not notable, no reliable sources, only refs are self-published. I have no idea how to do this voting stuff though.D.C.F. 1987 (talk) 00:58, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Weak delete. I've argued for the notability of some local weathermen who've reached public prominence, and in fairness it should be noted that a GNews search for yields more than 100 hits[https://www.google.com/search?q=deedler+meteorologist&hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&hs=7RE&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&tbm=nws&prmd=imvns&source=lnt&tbs=ar:1&sa=X&ei=uEU8UOzRO6iXiALyyoHQDA&ved=0CCIQpwUoBQ&biw=1280&bih=644]. The reliable sources indicate that he was quoted frequently about weather issues in Michigan and published many articles on the subject. However, I didn't find any independent coverage about him (only the press release about his retirement) and based on other local weatherman AfDs, I don't see enough here to meet the notability bar. Would be happy to be persuaded otherwise. --Arxiloxos (talk) 04:17, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Arxiloxos (talk) 22:42, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Delete. Many of the things he reported on were notable, but alas he himself is not notable. This is an important distinction that often is not understood in deletion debates. Qworty (talk) 23:44, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Weak delete A long and distinguished career, but unfortunately, not meeting Wikipedia guidelines under WP:GNG; I even considered WP:ACADEMIC without result. He gets a ton of hits at [http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=william+deedler&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8#q=william+deedler&hl=en&client=safari&rls=en&tbm=nws&prmd=imvnso&source=lnt&tbs=ar:1&sa=X&ei=JclDULGMOerKyQGaj4CwDA&ved=0CCAQpwUoBQ&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=9e12cb5ef80bf93f&biw=1079&bih=595 Google News Archive], but none of them are ABOUT him, they are QUOTING him ("...according to Bill Deedler, meteorologist with the National Weather Service..."). I was unable to think of a suitable redirect target. --MelanieN (talk) 21:06, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

::P.S. It's always a bad sign when the top hit in a Google search is the Wikipedia article. --MelanieN (talk) 21:06, 2 September 2012 (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.