Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Victoria Toensing

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 keep. John254 01:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Victoria Toensing

Victoria Toensing (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Unsourced article which is a biography of a living person; violates WP:BLP; missing citations for over a year; see its talk page for discussion and its editing history. NYScholar (talk) 02:53, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

The article also makes statements about other living persons without giving source citations, violating WP:BLP as pertains to them as well. --NYScholar (talk) 02:58, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Article contains a lot of salient information about an influential individual. Should be kept if possible. Currently has two sources listed. Yellow-bellied sapsucker (talk) 03:37, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep may be notable. JJL (talk) 04:13, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The footnotes show two reliable, independent sources that give substantial coverage to the subject, and that meets WP:N. Violations of WP:BLP can be corrected without destroying an article on someone in the public eye. Anyone who appears regularly on television programs as an expert should have a Wikipedia article if proper sourcing exists. There's also a practical justification: People see someone on television and are curious about that person's history and qualifications. Therefore, an independent, neutral article on that person is a great service. Noroton (talk) 03:18, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
  • [replying to the above comments: :::Though the subject is "notable" and "noteworthy", the article makes many unsourced statements, which is a violation of WP:BLP. If within a year (is is currently the case), these problems could not be corrected, the article is not in keeping with Wikipedia policies pertaining to living persons and particularly WP:BLP#Sources and WP:V. The "two sources listed" are not clearly cited throughout the article in relation to unsourced statements, which have no citations; some of those statements are about other living persons and thus doubly violations of WP:BLP. Either fix the article or delete it. Not every tv pundit gets an article in Wikipedia, espec. if it is not properly sourced. Those editors who want to keep the article can step up to correcting its problems. --NYScholar (talk) 04:42, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Again, removing material that has been unsourced is the answer to WP:BLP problems, not article deletion. Feel free to make it a stub. Editors who have an interest in the subject can then rebuild it. The subject is clearly Wikipedia-worthy. Noroton (talk) 17:26, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep: should be OK now, please review - links added; uncited paragraph regarding law rv. Yellow-bellied sapsucker (talk) 23:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep does seem ok now, sufficient sources for notable participation in multiple events. DGG (talk) 20:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

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.