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--Ymblanter (talk) 07:26, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Liisa Ladouceur

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Relist for further consideration following a no-consensus closure on the first nomination back in February. This is a WP:BLP of a writer which is not supported by adequate reliable sourcing to demonstrate that she passes WP:CREATIVE — while she has published books, the only sources provided for them are the books' entries on WorldCat (but directory sourcing doesn't count.) While she's been a magazine editor and journalist, there aren't independent sources covering her for those things. While she's been an occasional guest on radio and TV programs, an appearance on radio or TV cannot confer notability in and of itself. I've done a ProQuest "Canadian Newsstand Major Dailies" search, further, and found that while she's occasionally the bylined author, she's never been the subject of even one article in that entire database. What we have, accordingly, is an article that's almost literally just a cut and paste from her own website (OTRS filed to eliminate the WP:COPYVIO issue), but that just makes it a promotional/PR profile. Again, this is not a comment on her as a person — but the quality of sourcing that Wikipedia requires to legitimately support an article simply isn't there. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 02:41, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:13, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:13, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:13, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:13, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: I was thinking that this was a weak keep when I read the article. As a talking head, she might generate searches and queries. However, I followed the links, and. . . there just isn't anything there. Wikipedia is not a promotional space (no accusation made), but IMDB welcomes biographies from agents. However, the IMDB page says. . . nothing. In other words, she doesn't seem to have a career as an independent investigator/commentator that would actually lead to the interest that an encyclopedia article would answer. Therefore, delete. Hithladaeus (talk) 14:27, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete If there were more references to prove info, and was written in a less promotional standpoint, there is a chance it meets notability, but not as of now.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 14:00, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article is essentially unsourced; while she is a prolific writer, I could not find any articles where she was actually the subject, outside of some passing mentions. —Мандичка^YO 😜 15:41, 28 May 2015 (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.