Deletion of Serene Branson

Comment: ndash; A  minor case of Paraphasia resulting from migraine
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ONEVENT)

Comment: per .  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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

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  and  are getting at
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ANYBIO||WP:CREATIVE)

Comment: per , but whatever closure happens it's going to get DRVed. This is one of those things
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: coverage above from before 1E isn't significant enough to satisfy 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: as wildly trivial |single event
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: 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 ), 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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: As above, even discounting the notability of the featured individual the  justification is enough. Besides this, millions of people will be looking for information on the event from Wikipedia, this is, afterall, it's purpose
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ONEEVENT)

Comment: mdash; textbook example of 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: Textbook 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: 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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:WEIGHT)

Comment: Not notable other than for the single garbled on-air appearance. This is a classic case of 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: The Emmy nominations put it up over  in my opinion
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ONEEVENT)

Comment: 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.http://news.google.com/news/search?aq=0z&pz=1&cf=all&ned=us&hl=en&q=serene+branson&oq=Ser  She has been around as a reporter for quite a while and might have a scintilla of notability apart from last night's scare.http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&tbs=nws%3A1%2Car%3A1%2Csbd%3A1&q=%22serene+branson%22&aq=f&aqi=g-z2&aql=&oq=  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 Studieshttp://www.tfas.org/page.aspx?pid=1749, and thus probably not anything that conveys notability.  and some level of discretion here may suggest that deletion is the best course
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: Still , 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: per |our policy on biographies of living people who are known only for a single event
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)