Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jojo Capece

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:18, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jojo Capece[edit]

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

Subject isn't generally notable. Written as a promotional piece, this article carries a lot of content not supported by the sources. For example, the NYT source and the WaPo source only make out that she was a DC-based publicist and hosted meals. One is a mere mention and the other is self-serving tripe. The UPI source is also a mere mention. The italoamericano.org source is an interview and therefore not independent. The pieces from The Daily Telegraph and The Times are more substantial (rotating around inheritance issues) but I don't think any of these establishes general notability. This article claims this woman went by a few different names as the source material doesn't really line up and none seem to explicate these changes so I don't know for sure this is one person. There's too much self-promotion for me to ignore. Chris Troutman (talk) 06:31, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 06:33, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 06:33, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of coverage to establish full notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:03, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the quantity and quality of the references are insufficient to establish notability. Once the puffery is tripped away, there is not much here that would support notability. A few of the references that I checked are very peripheral.198.58.162.176 (talk) 06:00, 19 February 2017 (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.