Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Victoria Looseleaf

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. MBisanz ^talk 01:18, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria Looseleaf

Long term badly-sourced BLP of uncertain notability. Prod removed. Black Kite 11:48, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable, speedily maybe, as the article is copyright violation from here [1] (or press release copy at least). Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 13:45, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not a copyvio - that site is a Wikipedia mirror. Black Kite 10:59, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - she is unpaid, rather than a professional journalist. [2] Appears to be a plug for a 127-page paperback book. (Do they really bother to publish books that thin? Used copies on sale at amazon.com for $0.01) Racepacket (talk) 04:15, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they do. Not every book is encyclopedia size. For example the succesful book series by Dutch crime writer nl:Appie Baantjer has paperbacks around this size. And children's paperbacks are sometimes that short too (children's books are shorter in general) - Mgm|^(talk) 08:54, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I used to live in Los Angeles, and I remember having discussions from time to time with others about her, so she at least is as notable as any of the billions of local television news anchors we have otherstuff articles about. On to actual reliable sourcing, though, there is this bio piece from the Los Angeles Times (will try to get an actual e-reprint) and a bunch of other pieces in which she is more than "just mentioned." user:j (aka justen) 18:52, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Journalists, like others, require coverage about them. Not much that I can turn up in this regard Vartanza (talk) 05:33, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage like the 1992 Los Angeles Times article "Cable's Victoria Looseleaf Takes a Page From Ed Sullivan's Book," you mean? user:j (aka justen) 05:52, 21 April 2009 (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.