- 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 --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:41, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sven Sundgaard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Unexplained anon disputed the prod, appears not to meet WP:BIO or WP:NOTE. Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 03:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom --Orange Mike | Talk 03:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:43, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. If we had an article on every meteorologist on Earth, just think how many articles we would have. I know the policy regarding this comment about disk space, but that would just be an unnecessary, massive waste of it. Jonathan 02:56, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, the style of the article suffers greatly from the fact that it appears to have been directly slanted by a desire to forestall claims of not being of encyclopaedic worth. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 08:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per nom. Narson (talk) 09:07, 26 December 2007 (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.