Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lucy Noland (3rd nomination)

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. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:36, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lucy Noland

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

Doesn't seem notable, sources are only routine. Career section has been unsourced since forever. First AFD was closed only because the subject allegedly asked for it. I speedy-closed the last AFD in 2010 because no deletion argument was raised (seriously, you'd think Jimbo would know better), but I'm still not seeing a true assertation of notability here. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:42, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Being an anchor at a few local news stations does not make her notable. Nothing provided demonstrates that she is a particularly notable local news anchor. All we have is routine coverage of her going from place to place.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:14, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Journeywoman anchor who hasn't really been in one market or another for a long period. Current KNBC biography is just as vague as this one (also, she is one of the few on the KNBC bio page who doesn't do any social networking). Also taking in mind that subject asked for removal/pruning to spark original AfD in 2008 through the proper processes and we seemed to not take her request in mind, when it should have been done, not questioned for her reasons and ignored by those who voiced in the AfD. Nate • (chatter) 07:04, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 27 February 2012 (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.