Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Serene Branson

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:20, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Closing Comments

As this is going to be controversial, I thought I would give a more detailed explanation of my reasoning than I would usually do!

Firstly, I would like to thank everyone who has commented here. Your opinions (including the responses to other people's comments) were invaluable. This is the strength of the AfD process - it allows discussion to take place, and a truly community-based decision to be made. So thank you everyone who took part.

Secondly, I have left Safiel in the 'delete' camp, as the nominator. Although s/he said that it should be closed as no consensus, this is not the same as saying "I now think that it should be kept" - if this assumption is incorrect, then please accept my apologies.

Thirdly, some of the arguments presented I judged as having less weight than others:

  • Arguments presented by editors/IPs with few or no edits outside of the article and the AfD, although this only accounted for 8% of the total number of contributors
  • "Per other people's arguments" with no argument of their own
  • "Other people do/do not have an article"
  • "If we delete this, we would have to reconsider other articles"
  • Personal attacks against editors
  • No reasoning given (i.e. a simple "Keep" and signature)
  • "People will be looking for this article following the coverage"
  • "Change to event article" - not for the reasoning as such, but as there was only one person who suggested this, so it is nowhere near consensus!

I did not discount them completely, but I felt that they were lesser arguments than others that were presented.

Now on to the actual reason for my judging the consensus as delete...

If this were a straight vote, then it would be numerically 25 deletes - 24 keeps - 1 other. If I ignored the "less weight" arguments discussed above, it would numerically be 23 deletes - 16 keeps.

However, AfD is not a numerical vote - it is the arguments which are important, and so I had to look at the main issues here.

Obviously, the main argument here is: "Is this a One Event item or not".

Almost all of the "deletes" say that it is (and/or that the event is the notable thing, not the person).

The arguments for "keeps" are basically saying that she was notable before this event as a result of the Emmy nominations and her career. (Incidentally, the fact that she works for a major CBS affiliate does not, in and of itself, make her notable). The arguments against this is that the nominations are for regional Emmys not national ones (which do not give the same level of notability) and that the coverage of her career prior to the event is minimal.

My feeling is that the arguments for keeping the article do not quite counter ONEEVENT. Whether the event itself deserves an article is a discussion for other places. As such I am closing this as a delete consensus.

I appreciate that however I had closed this AfD (delete, keep, no consensus) then it would be controversial! I trust that this fuller-than-usual explanation of the thoughts behind my decision will be beneficial to all contributors.

Regards, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:20, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Serene Branson[edit]

Serene Branson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article was hastily added after incorrect reporting of an on air incident. Proposing for deletion as a non notable reporter. Safiel (talk) 00:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Also, the Frank Shakespeare award she won is in itself non notable and not sufficient to establish her notability. Safiel (talk) 01:01, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment As the original nominator, there clearly will be no consensus on this and I think we can go ahead and close as no consensus. Safiel (talk) 18:12, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete This is a just a local reporting flubbing about 10 seconds of speech, which is pretty minor. --Rob (talk) 00:43, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – A WP:ONEVENT minor case of Paraphasia resulting from migraine. ttonyb (talk) 00:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. She may well be non-notable under the applicable Wikipedia standards, but in fairness, it should be noted that last night's incident has been reported in hundreds of reliable sources, nationally and internationally, in addition to hundreds of unsavory gossip sites.[1] She has been around as a reporter for quite a while and might have a scintilla of notability apart from last night's scare.[2] However, I haven't been able to track down independent confirmation of the Emmy nominations mentioned at her station bio, and it appears to me that the "Frank Shakespeare Award" mentioned there is a student award given by the Institute on Political Journalism of the Fund for American Studies[3], and thus probably not anything that conveys notability. WP:BLP1E and some level of discretion here may suggest that deletion is the best course.--Arxiloxos (talk) 01:00, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Even if we get 3rd party verification of the emmy nom, it probably wouldn't show notability, since it's probably a regional emmy, given for local news coverage. --Rob (talk) 01:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete There is no basis for deleting this article. Case in point: Caitlin Upton. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.102.220.252 (talk) 01:03, 15 February 2011 (UTC) — 79.102.220.252 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comments – The existence of other articles has no bearing on this AfD. Each article must stand on its own merits. See WP:WAX. ttonyb (talk) 05:26, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP Don't you just love the way that Safiel determines that this beautiful reporter's prize is "not notable". And what have you won, Safiel? What national prizes have you won, you lazy armchair prat? This is a classic example of the talentless morons who dictate their biased and unfair views on Wikipedia. If you weren't posting on Wikipedia and if the internet didn't exist, you would never even have a platform to voice your worthless rubbish. No one would listen to your rubbish; just another smelly college student getting ready to join a workforce of sheep. Serene Branson is a beautiful young lady who has achieved a wonderful prize and deserves to be recognized for that honor. She also has a wonderful career in front of her, despite you nasty talentless male pigs wishing her ill. FACT: None of YOU could win the Frank Shakespeare award. Deleting her article is totally against the spirit of Wikipedia that Jimbo Wales professes to encourage while asking the public with his begging bowl to donate money. Please do NOT delete this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fairnessprevails (talk • contribs) 01:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC) — Fairnessprevails (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment – Fairnessprevails, It does not matter that you are new to Wikipedia, such comments are not only not appreciated, but they are not acceptable in any form. If you wish to contribute to Wikipedia, I suggest you realize this is a community of volunteers and understand you are welcome to disagree, but not become disagreeable. Please read WP:UNCIVIL before you continue contributing to Wikipedia. I will make sure you have been left a Welcome message on your talk page that contains a number of useful links. ttonyb (talk) 01:41, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ttonyb your play on words, witty as it may be, does not help your case. Fairnessprevails is entitled defend his/her standpoint in this matter. If you find this disagreeable then I recommend you disregard Fairnessprevails comment. Others may find it completely valid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.102.220.252 (talk) 01:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – My comments were not intended to defend my stand on the article, only to point out to Fairnessprevails lack of civility is not appreciated nor acceptable on Wikipedia. If you think it is, then I suggest you also read WP:UNCIVIL. Fairnessprevails is more than entitled to defend his/her stand; however, not in a manner that is offensive or WP:UNCIVIL. ttonyb (talk) 02:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment This personal attack by Fairnessprevails against myself appears to be the only edit by this editor. Moreover, he takes a swipe at Mr. Wales. Since he apparently has plenty of rope and seems to be intent on hanging himself, I won't say anything more about it. Safiel (talk) 05:10, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep She had some claim of notability before the vocal flubadub, since there had been multiple news coverage about her, not merely by her. See the pre-flub Google News Archive results for 2005-2010:[4]. See in particular a 2007 newspaper article about her, "Serene Branson who had been freelancing in the area will be a reporter ..." and "Serene Branson Channel 13's crime reporter made a name for herself during last November's sweeps when she had an exclusive interview with released pedophile ... " , behind paywall, also appear to have significant coverage of her before the episode. Being in the news worldwide does not remove modest notability which previously existed. Edison (talk) 02:21, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    None of that confers notability, just standard blurbs on a minor reporter. Oh, she left one job for another? Woo hoo....local, trivial coverage. Stop trying to squeeze notability out of nothing. Tarc (talk) 02:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:N requires only multiple instances of significant coverage in reliable and independent sources, which is satisfied. An entire article is not trivial coverage.Edison (talk) 02:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Your claim is simply fraudulent. What we have are two small articles from the same local (sacbee.com) source. That does not even remotely satisfy "multiple instances of significant coverage in reliable and independent sources". Tarc (talk) 03:00, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Your claim of fraud is an unwarranted personal attack, and shows how desperate you are to "win." Edison (talk) 03:05, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • I am not desperate to "win", are you desperate to keep every article you come across? I am interested in exposing bad arguments, especially those that appear to be intentionally deceptive. Two examples of local news does not magically equal "significant coverage", and more than 2 plus 2 can equal 5. Tarc (talk) 03:34, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • In my last 20 AFD !votes, I see 7 "Keeps" and 13 "Deletes," clearly the index of a rabid Inclusionist, who is "intentionally deceptive" by including links to newspaper articles, rather than ranting. Edison (talk) 04:03, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per our policy on biographies of living people who are known only for a single event. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:28, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • As shown above, she had multiple instances of significant coverage in reliable and independent sources before the recent worldwide news coverage. Edison (talk) 02:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • As shown above, this claim is rebutted. Easily. Tarc (talk) 03:00, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Then please do so rather than posting empty bluster. Edison (talk) 03:07, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is going to be the new task I appoint myself; every time I see some witless, TMZ-ish OHMYGOD news-of-the-day about some previously unknown person suddenly getting drive-byed by the 24/7 news media, I will come here. I will then search for this person, crossing my fingers and hoping against hope that it will be a redlink. Today, disappointment sets in. She is being mentioned only for this WP:ONEEVENT, an on-air screw-up or seizure or whatever they think it is, it will be in youtube's archives forever more and that will be the end of it. A smattering of local dribble trawled out of a google search does not rescue this person form obscurity; absent this event, we would not be talking about her all. There are thousands of reporters in thousands of communities who have no doubt received the same "Person X is leaving local outlet Y to take a job at local outlet Z" write-ups. Tarc (talk) 02:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Even if you "DONTLIKE" articles about someone who has minor notability, followed by worldwide coverage due to some Youtube-esque episode, please do not descend to the tactic of denigrating significant coverage in reliable and independent sources as a "smattering of local dribble," when the nature and quality of coverage is better than that of countless localities, politicians, high schools, and professional athletes who had a moment in the sun. Edison (talk) 03:03, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • So you're using a OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument to justify the existence of this article? hbdragon88 (talk) 05:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm familiar with the WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS essay, and did not say "Crummy article X exists, so this one should stay." Rather I noted that this article has at least a couple of in depth cases of coverage of the person, prior to the recent widespread publicity, and that prior to the recent newsevent she had a small claim to notability, along with the fact that this bio article has better reliable sourcing than thousands of article found in AFDs about the classes of article subjects I mentioned. Please do not clutter the debate by strawman arguments in which you put words in someone else's mouth. Edison (talk) 13:33, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • The coverage is significant, sober, and serious - full articles in very respectable publications. Per Edison I think the question is whether a person with minor (which would imply keeping) or no (which would imply deleting or refocusing) notability, caught up a single news event, merits an article. That's a persistent issue. Whereas the problem is sometimes that the event itself is so trivial that no major reliable sources cover it, in other cases like this one the event itself is notable (or would be but for WP:NOT#NEWS concerns. Anyway, don't mind Tarc's colorful language. He/she is a good editor, just opinionated. - Wikidemon (talk) 08:31, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Putting the blinders on regarding the latest incident, she may be notable for other things, but the sources in the article do not establish that. Bylines, author blurbs and bios from the publisher, and passing mentions don't really add up to much. What we would need are profiles about her, or pieces in which she is the subject, or having won some major awards (two Emmy nominations might cut it, but I'm not sure). News reporters are always difficult to assess for notability, because as professionals the notability is in their work and how influential and widely viewed it is, like authors. But unlike authors, who seek publicity, news reporters usually try to duck publicity and don't write about each other, because they want to keep the story on the news, not themselves. As a local news reporter, I think she would only be notable for her work if it is particularly significant, influential, prominent, etc. Finally, the BLP1E and WP:NOT#NEWS concerns apply to the on-air event. However, Internet memes, and memorable events with lasting resonance, are certainly encyclopedic subjects. It remains to be seen whether this is such an event but it may well be. If major sources are still writing about this a month from now (and I'll bet they will be), then the event is notable and should be covered as such. That would imply renaming and refocusing this to be about the event, not about her. - Wikidemon (talk) 08:40, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per WP:WEIGHT, WP:BLP1E, WP:NOT#NEWS. Just not notable enough to merit an article, without the incident. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:41, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - borderline notable at best, but frankly we have 100s if not 1000s of TV news reporter articles like this and nobody cares a whit about them. At least (as we all know how the !votes are going to go), don't delete until the 7 day AfD period is over.--Milowent • talkblp-r 18:37, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have !voted "weak delete", but I certainly agree with Milowent that this AfD should run the full 7 days; by then we may have a better idea of whether this is going to gain traction that would make notability more apparent.--Arxiloxos (talk) 19:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - If her entry is deleted, then all kinds of entries for local TV personalities will have to be called into question. If the Grammy flub turns out to be nothing, then it should probably eventually be removed from her article. I would like to point out, however, that the "Hoobert Heever" flub occupies an entire paragraph high in the article for Harry Von Zell.Bellczar (talk) 18:41, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – The existence of other articles has no bearing on this AfD. It could very well be they should not exist on Wikipedia. Also, I would venture to say that Harry Von Zell was much more notable than Ms. Branson and was notable for a quite a few more things beyond his "Hoobert Heever" flub. ttonyb (talk) 18:56, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – What difference would the reason for the Paraphasia make? ttonyb (talk) 19:51, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Ms. Branson has received a high level of media attention and sparked discussions on the symptoms of a stroke. -- Evans1982 (talk) 19:40, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – She is not the focus of the media attention. The event is the focus. ttonyb (talk) 19:51, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change to event article. If this article stays at all, it should be changed to an event. My opinion is that viral youtube videos, their re-mixes and any spawned internet memes are notable in their own right. Only time will tell if this person rises to notability because of the incident, but until that point this should be a page describing the event and the buzz it caused. Not an article about the person. --Lansey (talk) 21:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    We really can't count youtube and other viral video creations as assertions of notability though, those are user-generated/submitted things. Notability is established by reliable sources, and in cases where youtube, etc...personalities have become worthy of Wikpedia articles, it is due to them being covered by those other sources. EVEN RS coverage isn't enough for an article, as in this case it is only a WP:ONEEVENT single 15 minutes of fame. Tarc (talk) 15:22, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The NYTimes has already run an article on Ms. Branson's possible stoke http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/15/did-a-reporter-have-a-stroke-on-tv/ and the teaching possibilities of this because of it's rarely being caught on video and her young age. People will be looking for a Wikipedia article. Karen Anne (talk) 21:55, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I pretty much agree with Tarc. If it wasn't for the recent event she would not be notable. The earlier coverage is neither substantial nor widespread, being typical local coverage of TV reporters. This would not have passed WP:GNG before, which makes this recent incident fit squarely into WP:BLP1E. Kevin (talk) 22:05, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. If the only grounds for notability are the recent incident, WP:BLP1E applies. Looking at the earlier coverage, she's had some attention from reliable sources, but all pretty minor and cursory; not enough to pass the notability test, I think. The question to ask in these cases is 'if it hadn't been for the recent event, would we have had an article on the person?' and in this case I have to answer 'no'. Robofish (talk) 23:05, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    On second thoughts, there's nothing 'weak' about it, just plain delete. This is a BLP1E, and a somewhat negative one at that; there are no grounds for keeping it. Robofish (talk) 12:46, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I watch KCAL/KCBS on a daily basis, and she is one of their lesser used reporters. Check out KCBS-TV and KCAL-TV; the only general reporter with an article besides Branson is Lisa Sigell, and that's because she's a former KCBS morning news anchor. The rest who have articles are anchors, weather, and sports; general news reporters are not-notable. Many of the keep votes so far put her into WP:SingleEvent. Other keep votes try to argue there's lots of reporters with articles, but the list at KCBS-TV and KCAL-TV refute that. Unless she becomes a national network reporter, she isn't notable; local reporters are generally not notable. OCNative (talk) 02:08, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:OtherStuffExists, which shows as an invalid argument, "Delete We do not have an article on y, so we should not have an article on this. –GetRidOfIt! 04:04, 4 April 2004 (UTC)" Unscintillating (talk) 21:33, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: swayed by arguments by other editors. Delete.Only notable for one event. ' Falcon8765 (TALK) 02:36, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep She is a reporter at a major network-affiliated station in a major U.S. media market; there are dozens of Wikipedia articles on persons at a comparable level of notability. Obviously, the article needs to be developed beyond the story of this one incident and needs relavent facts from verifiable third party sources like DOB and more career info, but most articles are not born full-grown. Why not leave it for a while and see what develops; if in a few weeks or months there is little of merit beyond this incident in the article, then RFD would be completely in order. 75.216.40.75 (talk) 03:38, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding "dozens of Wikipedia articles on persons at a comparable level of notability", can you show where? If there are, perhaps these need to be evaluated for notability concerns as well, but going by KCBS-TV#Current on-air staff, only one other reporter has an article, and she actually won a real Emmy plus 2 regional ones. Tarc (talk) 14:26, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Textbook WP:BLP1E. OhNoitsJamie Talk 03:46, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as Non-event Medical Problem of Serene Branson, then delete. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 05:39, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete coverage above from before 1E isn't significant enough to satisfy WP:N.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:54, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- The Emmy nominations put it up over WP:ONEEVENT in my opinion. Umbralcorax (talk) 17:12, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Would you still feel that way if it is a regional Eemmy, given for local work. --Rob (talk) 19:07, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's a Regional Emmy, not a national Emmy. http://www.emmys.tv/search/node/Serene%20Branson and http://www.emmys.tv/2009/61st-los-angeles-area-emmy%C2%AE-awards-nominations OCNative (talk) 11:15, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Two nominations for the same piece, one that resulted in a win, in the Los Angeles Area Emmy awards. This is interesting, but probably not the type of significant award or honor that WP:ANYBIO and WP:CREATIVE are getting at. --Crunch (talk) 13:10, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm not saying the emmys are an ideal indicator of notability, but I think that she'd achieved some notability for those emmys prior to the event which spurred the creation of this article. I guess what I'm trying to say is that I think in this case, one plus one equals two, with two being notability. I'm also not going to be upset if this article is deleted. While I think it should be kept, the consensus may go the other way, and that's fine with me. Umbralcorax (talk) 17:45, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As above, even discounting the notability of the featured individual the WP:ONEEVENT justification is enough. Besides this, millions of people will be looking for information on the event from Wikipedia, this is, afterall, it's purpose. Stevezimmy (talk)
    WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a valid reason to retain an article. Tarc (talk) 14:26, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. NOT a newspaper. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:34, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — textbook example of WP:BLP1E. *** Crotalus *** 16:19, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as wildly trivial single event.Jonathanwallace (talk) 17:44, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete Notable event, non notable person up until now Airplanegod (talk) 18:47, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable other than for the single garbled on-air appearance. This is a classic case of WP:BLP1E. --Crunch (talk) 03:29, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep According to this article on MSN, she had been nominated for two Emmy Awards, which may make her a bit notable, but, that's the only source I've found. WereWolf (talk) 03:37, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Her own station has identified the medical event: she suffered a migraine, yes a migraine. http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2011/02/17/serene-branson-talks-about-her-live-medical-emergency/ Is she notable for suffering a migraine?! OCNative (talk) 11:15, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete: On the one hand this event has spread through Youtube virally and has even spawned "remixes" and such. Birtation or Bird-tation might even become a meme. However I think this may die down, or it may stick around in reporting, but if attention were to die down lets leave the meme sites to report on this and lets not turn Wikipedia into a lulz-free version of Encyclopediadramatica. 174.55.2.138 (talk) 14:15, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Just because the article was "hastily" put together and there was "incorrect reporting of an on air incident" does not diminish her notability. I think this AfD was "hastily" made without due consideration of that. The article is sourced. She has been nominated for and received notable awards. The article needs some expansion, and the information about the on-air incident needs some trimming, but otherwise it is an acceptable artcile. Cresix (talk) 16:08, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This article seems decent and has multiple independent sources. Toa Nidhiki05 16:12, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, her article would have gone unnoticed if it was written about her after the local Emmy wins. Plus, this incident is notable in the context in an anthropological sense, of how the internet can exploit someone's (at that point presumed) medical issue; someone researching the history of the Internet and culture and general, as of 2100, will likely find this (and other examples) to be interesting, valuable case studies. It's planning ahead, essentially. Also, we're the second result for Serene, it's important to that our slightly more rounded portrait be featured in search results, instead of misinformation. -- Zanimum (talk) 16:36, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Were this just a viral video, she wouldn't be notable, but the level of continuing, substantive RS coverage is more than enough to demonstrate notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:25, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BLP1E. Local Emmy is not enough for notability; she's just a news reporter who suddenly went viral because of one incident, and the incident itself is fiarly minor. The RS coverage only talks about the incident in question, not about Branson as a person herself. hbdragon88 (talk) 21:06, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable.  Discussion above shows that there were two events, (1) the video of the event, and (2) the misreporting regarding a stroke.  Therefore the positions based on WP:BLP1E fall.  Also not mentioned is that KCBS is not an affiliate but one of the core TV stations that defines CBS as a "network" (see ref and CBS Television Stations).  Unscintillating (talk) 21:33, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment  Please note Wikipedia talk:Notability (events)#Afd/merge discussions while event is current. ‎ Unscintillating (talk) 21:33, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as per nom and, as above the event is the focus, not the journalist. --82.41.20.82 (talk) 21:49, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, for a few reasons. I understand the policies that others are referencing, but my concern is that some of this Delete-backlash may be coming from people disgusted with the sensationalist media circus surrounding this one event. This would be a completely different discussion if it were a random person caught on camera in the midst of a medical event, even if the news had picked it up and ran with it (because of WP:BLP1E), but that isn't the case. She is a reporter who has done other things and gained at least some notability during her career. I genuinely believe that the WP:N guidelines were not made with this kind of person/article in mind. I'm not seeing the harm in keeping the article and improving on it. Sure, this event is the focus now (it just happened after all) but with a few improvements the article would stand on its own. Also, it's almost certain, as a relatively young reporter, that she will be doing more things. I'm not using a crystal ball, I'm just thinking that unequivocal hammering home of the "rules" can sometimes cause people to completely miss the spirit of them. Maybe it's just me though. Personally, I don't have a TV, saw this reporter's name and wanted to read about her, bringing me to Wikipedia. Isn't that what we're for? *Vendetta* (whois talk edits) 23:55, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep for the same reasons given by Vendetta above. --Pompous Trihedron (talk) 02:05, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The coincidence of a significant neurological event being widely televised with Ms. Branson's already extant fame merits a keep. Users will want to find this. --Chaler (talk) 16:12, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment  The reporter was interviewed tonight on ABC Evening News; and Entertainment Tonight (ET), also on ABC, had two segments with an interview.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:58, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Still WP:BLP1E, even if the 1E is still generating echoes. I will say that this AfD has generated some of the most imaginative "keep" rationales I've ever seen. PhGustaf (talk) 03:15, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: While the incident did get some major headlines, the fact that she does have some award (nominations) does contribute to her credibility. ViperSnake151  Talk  05:54, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per notability outside of the single incident.--Obsidi♠nSoul 12:32, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Would this be the notability that doesn't exist? Tarc (talk) 14:43, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As already discussed above, her nominations for the Emmy awards count as something, as are her other awards. The article is about her, not the Grammy Awards incident. See Vendetta's reasoning above. I'm completely neutral about the topic, and I don't care either way, but that is my opinion.--Obsidi♠nSoul 15:34, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I was surprised (but sadly, not shocked --I'm never shocked by Wikipedia anymore) to see someone had placed a delete tag on this article. In addition to the nominations, she's an established reporter for one of CBS's biggest affiliates (LA and NYC are the top, for crying out loud). --Bobak (talk) 17:34, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nothing in WP:CREATIVE even hints at your argument that "you're a reporter for a huge organization, therefore you're notable and deserve a Wikipedia article." hbdragon88 (talk) 23:07, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is nothing notable here. This article is merely a news story, and a minor one at that. In a short time no one is going to look at it. I have no doubt that there are numerous WP articles of the same level of notability, but that is no reason to keep another. Busaccsb (talk) 16:50, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete A non-notable reporter who is sadly receiving a ton of coverage for an unfortunate one event she was the focus of. Also remember, working for a big company is not a reason for notability, as described in Wikipedia:INHERITED.--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:53, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Los Angeles article states, "...Los Angeles-Long Beach-Riverside combined statistical area, which contains nearly 17.8 million people and center of the largest urban area in California. This makes it the 12th most populous metropolitan area in the world."  So as non-notable people go she is highly notable before being interviewed by Diane Sawyer on ABC Evening News.  Additionally, I assume that there is a complete video library of her KCBS news reports that amounts to a large body of primary source material, and I think such a library makes any local reporter of a well-organized TV station a strong candidate for recognition as having enduring historical interest.  Unscintillating (talk) 19:17, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – No one disputes the LA news market is large; however, being seen by a lot of people does not make one notable. Neither is popularity part of the equation that defines Wikipedia based notability. The large amount of video material that is comprised of her KCBS reports is not a primary source that supports her, but rather they are primary support for the events she was covering. Being part of a "well-organized TV station" is not one of the criteria in WP:BIO or any other notability criteria. Additionally, because notability is not inherited, neither is being part of or associated with something. ttonyb (talk) 19:55, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would disagree in part with that. The notability guideline isn't terribly well defined for journalists, but along with others who are known more for their body of work than for their own personal exploits, journalists' notability is derived at least in part for the influence of their reportage. With authors, mere appearance on a best seller list is enough to establish notability. Secondary sources are few and far between. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:53, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • She didn't have a "bare claim to notability" before this event, though; she had no claim. A handful of editors are engaging in a form of revisionist history, trawling through weak, years-old name-droppings to try to build this person up to be more than she actually is. Tarc (talk) 15:28, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The two newspaper articles (far more than "name-droppings") and the local Emmy nomination are a weak claim, but hardly "no claim" unless WP:BIO has been revised to raise the bar. In previous cases, others of slight notability have avoided the WP:BLP1E argument by similar earlier coverage. The fact that the earlier coveerage is "years old" is absolutely not an argument for deletion when such a person gets widespread newscoverage later. Notability is not temporary, and coverage from years ago is fine. Edison (talk) 18:01, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't say it should be discounted because it is "years old", so please, keep the servings of red herring to yourself. It should be discounted because it is trivial and routine. Absent this brief episode of on-air confusion, aphasia, or whatever it was, no one would be digging up in long-forgotten news blurbs or crowing over non-notable regional Emmys for a regional news reporter. This article is a shining example of inclusionism run amokTarc (talk) 18:13, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BLP1E, but whatever closure happens it's going to get DRVed. This is one of those things. Stifle (talk) 15:23, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting point about the DRV, and this discussion was started before anyone could make an informed decision.  Please see this proposal.  Unscintillating (talk) 17:28, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment As there is clearly no consensus either way, and there clearly won't be a consensus, I think we can safely close this as no consensus. Safiel (talk) 18:04, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, BS. No consensus findings are a weak cop-out, it's like basketball refs handing out double-technical because they don't ant to take the time or make an effort to see who the instigator was. Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the arguments, discard the junk that falls back on rote arguments to avoid, and make a call Tarc (talk) 18:09, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment When I nominated this, I really didn't see that much controversy with it. But I am neither a deletionist nor an inclusionist and if people are hell bent on keeping it, I don't feel compelled to push the matter any farther. If somebody else does, fine. It is not that important enough an issue for me to get worked up over. Safiel (talk) 18:17, 23 February 2011 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Serene_Branson&oldid=1169237868"