Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bee Tucker

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. Sexism charge is unfounded. Same arguments would apply to male presenter, there has been no demonstration that independent, reliable sources have discussed the topic in-depth, nor is there any other indication that the individual has had a significant impact on their industry or on culture. This is not a commentary on the quality of the individual's work, and topic may attain notability in the future. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 23:26, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bee Tucker

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Little known or non-notable weather broadcaster. Potential requirement for the article, but very little to go by at the moment. - Funky Snack (Talk) 16:24, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:36, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:36, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:37, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:37, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A successful female meteorologist regularly appearing in the media when such people are now taken seriously as scientists and not regarded as just 'weather girls'. Would there be the same discussion and risk of deletion if this was a male scientist rather than a female one? Removing this article would be an act of old-fashioned sexism indicating that Wikipedia is not reflecting our changing times in its understanding of Notability. Peteinterpol (talk) 12:03, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Just because she is a female weather presenter, does't make her notable. Just because someone appears on TV or radio, doesn't automatically mean they get an article on Wikipedia. She doesn't pass WP:GNG and therefore should be considered for deletion. There are no reliable sources whatsoever, so unless anything can be found, this article is likely to be deleted. - Funky Snack (Talk) 06:42, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How disappointing that as predicted, the emphasis is on her being a presenter rather than the background that got her on TV in the first place, ie she is a scientist. Would the emphasis be the same for a male scientist? Why for example is Matt Taylor (meteorologist) not up for deletion? The world sadly seems to regard female scientists as 'presenters' or 'weather girls'. It's so sad that this debate has already followed this predictable sexist path. Peteinterpol (talk) 14:08, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "...no reliable sources whatsoever". The BBC is commonly regarded as a reliable source in support of many thousands of WP articles. Peteinterpol (talk) 14:15, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Reliable sources are articles that have been written about them. Having a staff profile on the BBC website isn't good enough. If you can find an external source that is reliable, there is potential for the article to remain, but I can't find anything that acts as a reliable source. The same goes for Matt Taylor, I will take a look at this. - Funky Snack (Talk) 15:43, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Adding material that emphasises her notability as a scientist. Peteinterpol (talk) 15:48, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm not sure you understand what I'm saying. Bearcat always hits the nail on the head when explaining RS etc so I'll hand it over. - Funky Snack (Talk) 08:46, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless somebody can actually find the correct calibre of sourcing to get her over WP:GNG. A person's notability is not demonstrated by (a) their staff profile on the self-published website of their own employer, (b) blogs, (c) Q&A interviews in which they're talking about themselves, or (d) anybody's Twitter tweets — a person's notability is demonstrated by being the subject of content in reliable sources they aren't affiliated with, such as books and media outlets other than the one that signs their paycheque. But every single reference here is one or more of the four things I had to list as the wrong kind of sources. She'd be eligible to keep an article that was properly referenced to notability-supporting sources, but none of the sources here constitute support for notability at all — and no, the fact that her employer happens to be the BBC, whose journalism would obviously be a reliable source in many other contexts, does not mean its staff profiles of its own employees magically reify into notability-supporting sources for those employees, because a source has to be independent of the topic to actually count as support for notability. The rule is not that as long as the article says potentially notable stuff, the sources can be just any flotsam that technically verifies them even if she and her employer created said sources themselves — the quality and depth and range and volume and independence of the sourcing is the notability test. Bearcat (talk) 11:31, 4 June 2019 (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.