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 per consensus and article's improvement. Sources added. diff PeaceNT 05:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lucy_Verasamy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View log)

Strong Keep I cannot understand why this page is up for deletion? She has an Offical Fansite at www.lucyverasamy.com and is one of the Sky Weather presenters. Please can someone explain what copyright this entry has infringed upon?

--Visionaryone 12:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I wholeheartedly agree with the above, why is this being nominated for deletion? She is a well recognised weather presenter on Sky News. And can I also point out the following page which lists Sky weather forecasters:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Sky_News_weather_forecasters

If the individuals listed there are acceptable, why isn't Verasamy's page not acceptable?

And if notability is an issue, can I also point out there are plenty of news articles which quote her as a source, both when she worked for the PA Weather Centre and more recently as a Sky News weather forecaster.

--Lonewolf 1183 19:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There is no assertion of notability here beyond being a weather presenter for a satellite news channel. Nothing that shows she has done anything notable beyond being a weather presenter. Sources are also lacking. Blogs and personal sites are not verifiable or reliable sources. DarkAudit 14:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral Better. Maybe add a bit about how often UK news sources cite her as their source. WP:BIO met as an oft-cited source. DarkAudit 14:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional Being quoted as a source does not assert notability. The person must be the focus of an article per WP:BIO. DarkAudit 14:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Exact same criticism applies to the other weather forecasters she is listed alongside, and further she is now listed on IMDB. Aside from Sky News she also presents on the national Five (channel) terrestrial channel, thus further notability. Lonewolf 1183 14:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Personal websites and IMDB are not reliabe source. Key grips have their own IMDB pages and anyone can create a personal website. There needs to be more secondary independent non trivial sources to assert notability. I'm going to do some digging before I decide on whether this article should be kept. --Cyrus Andiron 14:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Citing WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument for inclusion. Articles must stand or fall on their own merits. DarkAudit 16:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. First of all, this AFD appears to be missing a reason for deletion nomination, but to follow up in spirit of AGF, there are several ways this article subject passes WP:BIO. By simple affiliation with the SKY conglomerate (aside from being a recognizable face and name in UK and Europe), this sort of presence is in constant supply of "WP:RS". Murgh^disc. 16:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would counter that mere affiliation with SKY is irrelevant. There are many other newsreaders and meteorologists throughout the various networks under the News Corp. umbrella. Few would rate an article, but not the person reading the 12:15pm bulletin. DarkAudit 17:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • With due respect, isn't this a contradiction of what you stated earlier, that an article must stand on it's own merits regardless of other articles (hence, whether other New Corp presenters have articles or not is irrelevant to this discussion)? Either way, Murgh is correct in saying she is a recognisable name and face in the UK and Europe, hence that does merit her some notability. Bigredmonster 18:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was challenging the statement that the subject was notable merely by reason of working for SKY. That basis is not enough to meet WP:BIO guidelines. DarkAudit 18:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, I didn't mean notability merely by employment of SKYcorp, but inherent to her work on TV and web, SKY's regular use of her as an "expert commentator" and keeper of an Ask column would in other context be cited as WP:RS. Murgh^disc. 19:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • The article as it stands now does not assert any more notability than the person who presents the weather at 3am. If she's a UK comparison to Al Roker, Willard Scott, or even Lloyd Lindsay Young, there needs to be more than 'a weather presenter on SKY'. DarkAudit 19:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • I agree the article is lousy ATM, but we can't delete it on that basis. Just her exposure on web print (SKYnews syndicates to vast numbers of publications) that end up quoting her, Calcutta Telegraph for instance, makes it difficult to get around the extent of her fame. But yes, the article needs a lot of work. Murgh^disc. 19:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Just quoting her adds nothing to her notability. WP:BIO says she must be the focus of an article. She may be as famous as you say, but the article here and the sources it cites make her out to be 'just some weather lady'. DarkAudit 20:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • Yes, but WP:BIO but also states that "The person has demonstrable wide name recognition". Hers is intercontinental. Murgh^disc. 20:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • On that point I will invoke WP:IDONTKNOWIT and step aside. :) DarkAudit 21:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. None of the external references properly establish her notability. --DropDeadGorgias (talk)
• Delete If I understand well the article, she is one of a many weather presenters of a TV Channel. I don't agree with your WP:RS argument, since it is a primary and not a secondary source. The citation from the Calcutta Telegraph is not relevant either. I wouldn't call that substantial media coverage. -- lucasbfr ^talk 10:38, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you look at the context, it never claimed to provide "substantial coverage" but illustrate wide name recognition. Having no stake in this article my only bother is seeing deletes voiced on account of a poorly written and unreferenced article and not the article subject, which would stand normal NN scrutiny if someone took the time to present the sources. Although not looking to get slapped with any mentions of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, US equivalents could be Femi Oke or Mari Ramos. Murgh^disc. 15:21, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just to add to this, I know quoted articles citing the individual as a source aren't deemed worthy, but for the sake of those people who are wondering exactly what these articles are here is a brief summary of some of the articles which cite her (this is not an exhaustive list): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. Lonewolf 1183 15:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep/Immediate Close due failure to follow due process WP:AFD - Firstly, I think the originator of this AfD should follow due WP:AFD process, and give reasons as to WHY this article is facing AfD - alone, that's enough reason to close this AfD immediatly. Secondly, the editor Portabello has only ever made two edits - one to WP:AfD, and this AfD nomination. I could be tempted to suggest this is a piece of vandalism, possibly by a Sock Puppet. Thirdly, she passes WP:BIO with sufficent WP:RS - accepting its a poor article at present. Fourthly, if this were a program by an editor to clean out the category of Category:Weather presenters, and this AfD is succesful; then it seems this article on Elise Finch should be next as it would also for the same reasons fail AfD. Rgds, --Trident13 17:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nomination may have been flawed, but the article at the time did not pass WP:BIO and did not have any sources beyond a couple of blogs. The discussion that has followed was sound. DarkAudit 03:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair there was only one blog used in the original version. Lonewolf 1183 12:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try the new version - which does pass WP:BIO, and WP:RS. Rgds, --Trident13 10:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorsement changed. See above. DarkAudit 14:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Most weather presenters will be notable because they pass "Entertainers: … television personalities … With significant roles in … television …", to paraphrase the relevant bit of WP:BIO. The consensus implied by the large number of entries in Category:Weather presenters tends to bear this out. Smalljim 15:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I am changing my vote to keep per the new version. I still am not convinced all weather presenters are notable, but the new version highlights some work that, in my opinion, make her more notable than the average anchor. -- lucasbfr ^talk 19:38, 13 May 2007 (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.