Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Linda Capuano

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. Sandstein 08:34, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Linda Capuano (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

I think it’s G11, but that was declined by another admin. Random political appointee to a low-level office in DC. Likely created by an undeclared paid editor. Excluded from Wikipedia by WP:NOTSPAM, so nothing else matters, but if you want to check notability too: she’s not an elected official so fails NPOL and doesn’t meet the GNG either. All of that is secondary to being spam, however. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:03, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 18:50, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 18:50, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:23, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep I don't see this as either A7 or G11. [1] is independent (unlike any of the existing references), and some of the refs such as a University of Colorado alumni profile are useful for writing an article, though not necessarily for determining notability. Depending on the result of the COIN thread, I may support deletion; it's very marginal for GNG and no SNG is met. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:17, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Power~enwiki the Chronicle situation is routine coverage of a government announcement, which wouldn't meet the GNG. Also, the GNG doesn't even matter here: this is likely commissioned spam, so we don't need to even think about notability when looking at deletion. G11 is not the only way to delete spam, and while I think this is G11, I'm fine deleting it as spam through AfD. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:21, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - reads like a personal profile written by someone promoting the subject (as Tony said above, UPE is quite possible). If the subject is notable - and I'm not convinced she is at the moment - we won't lose very much at all by deleting this. A better article can be written in its place. ƒirefly ( t · c · who? ) 11:34, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete contrary to what was said above, one does not have to be elected to meet the requirements for politician notability. People with clear policy creating power, like members of cabinets and holders of important sub-cabinet level positions, like head of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, head of the FBI, head of the CIA, Surgeon General, and others clearly are notable. However Capuano's nominated post does not seem to be quite at that level. She has also apparently not been confirmed in the nomination. So even if the post did confer notability, she does not have it. The alumni profile is clearly not something that in any way adds to GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:10, 15 June 2018 (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.