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.
Keep There is, in fact, no support in WP:BIO for deletion. Why didn't the nominator put the other NBC Dateline personalities, Lester Holt, Chris Hansen, Hoda Kotb, Josh Mankiewicz, Keith Morrison, and Dennis Murphy up for deletion if the nominator sees some guideline in WP:BIO that calls for deletion here? WP:BIO in fact states that the subject is "presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." That is satisfied here, as she's the subject of an Ontario newspaper story and a "Notable Alumni" story in a UWO publication, aside from bios at the websites of media she's worked at and this lengthy article in Maclean's, a national (Canada) magazine.. More intuitively, someone who is not just a local journalist but has been a TV journalist for a major U.S. network for years is hardly obscure. Deleting this article would create a redlink in the People of ABC News template (she just joined NBC News, however, so I will be moving her to the NBC template) and many other articles. Finally, it improves Wikipedia's utility as a reference tool to enable the wikilinking of byline names in cited sources so that the reliability of the source can be more readily assessed (by going to the bio of the news item author to get more information about the person's journalistic bone fides). As such, unless a journalist only works for local, small market media, I suggest the bio be kept absent a compelling reason to delete. This article has been visited more than 7700 times just since October 1. Wikipedia is here to inform and deletion here undermines that objective instead of advancing it.--Brian Dell (talk) 06:12, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (but improve): Keep per WP:SIGCOV and the diverse articles over time that mention her. This is another case, however, where the deletion nomination could lead to significant improvement in the article. There is more out there about her that could build up the article into something less vulnerable to deletion. By Wikipedia standards this is not a C-class article but rather on the borderline of Start and Stub as it is incomplete. Crtew (talk) 20:47, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:BASIC (see: [1]), the article needs to be improved further, but even in its current form, it contains a good amount of verifiable information, so much that I'm not sure why it is nominated for deletion. Nimuaq (talk) 10:32, 29 December 2012 (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.