Deletion of Ben Swann

Comment: Article's subject does not meet ; sources are almost entirely self-published (by Swann's employers),  or non-independent (local industry
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CREATIVE||WP:ROUTINE)

Comment: per  and .  He's been shown to be ''notable enough
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BARE||WP:HEY)

Comment: First, article has . Second, criteria 1 is met by :Erik Wemple's Washington Post commentary (thank you, OP), the Murrow Award, and the Texas Media Emmy's
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Potential, not just current state (WP:POTENTIAL)

Comment: Swann passes  for his more controversial reporting. Despite what the nominator says above, Swann's journalism has been referred to in multiple reports and from reliable sources. It should be noted that receiving widespread coverage is not typical for local TV journalists. He also has won top awards multiple times that do satisfy . I found the arguments to dismiss his awards above not to be persuasive as those awards are themselves found in Wikipedia and pass notability. Additionally, he has repeatedly won awards. Local TV journalists are included throughout Wikipedia, which seems to be forgotten in many of the comments made so far
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SIGCOV||WP:ANYBIO)