Deletion of Matt Taylor (meteorologist)

Comment: As the nominator says, he is a well known weather forecaster and there is no issue with this article not passing  but the article does need more independent sources
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: does not meet , although having a successful career with the met office and the BBC, Taylor does not appear to have made achievements that tick any wikinotable boxes
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ANYBIO)

Comment: This article has been lacking information for sometime with no additional information or citations being added. If more information can be provided, there is scope for the article to remain. At the moment, the article fails . There is an ongoing discussion re a few meteorologists at the moment with the argument that they warrant an article "due to their job". This isn't the case, as with all articles, the information must be there if the article is to remain. I'm sure {{u|Bearcat}} would be happy to explain this better than me
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: The notability test for weather presenters is not just the ability to verify that they exist, by virtue of a staff profile on their employer's website or your sworn affidavit that you've personally just heard them doing their job with your own earholes: just like people in any other occupation, the notability test is always still the ability to get them over  as the ''subject'' of significant and substantive |reliable source coverage ''about'' them, in media that ''don't'' sign their paycheques. The notability test for people is never just the ability to use their own |primary source web presence as technical verification that he exists: it always requires ''journalists'' to be writing and publishing content ''about'' him and his work. On a Google search, however, all I can find is a one-day blip of  coverage about two months ago when he caught a lighting rig that was about to fall on him live on the air — but that's not enough, because what we need is ''ongoing'' coverage of a ''variety'' of aspects of his career, not just 10,000 reprints of the same story about a single viral moment. And he's not exempted from having to get over GNG just because you've heard him on the radio, either: not everybody on earth lives in the UK, so many more people have ''not'' heard him on the radio than have
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:RS||WP:PRIMARYSOURCES||WP:BLP1E)

Comment: I think we're all missing the point here. Just because he is on TV doesn't mean he is automatically entitled to an article. The article fails  and this is ''not'' OK, despite saying there is no issue. More RS need to be provided for this article to remain
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)