Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wendy Bell O'Toole 2ndNomination

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. MBisanz ^talk 01:23, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wendy Bell O'Toole[edit]

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

She is not notable, nothing is cited nor verifiable. Just an average anchorperson with no citations to back up any of the claims

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 January 30. Snotbot t • c » 23:31, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Local TV journalist, with no real -- or even proof -- of even regional-level accomplishments. --Calton | Talk 00:01, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She is known professionally as "Wendy Bell" and the O'Toole should be eliminated from searches for sources. Take a look at this article for clear evidence of reliable sources covering her accomplishments. There are many more like this. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:44, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note How does this constitute notability? Local news anchors are not inherently notable, the station's website constitutes a personal advertisement to herself, no need to take the advertising/unverifiable information to Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julser1 (talk • contribs) 11:51, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:58, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:58, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:59, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:59, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, subject fails WP:GNG & WP:ANYBIO. No significant coverage from secondary or terituary sources to indicate notability.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:34, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I did not find significant coverage from independent reliable sources. Items at Google News Archive are mostly stories from her own station, thus not independent. She has won local Emmys, but local Emmys are not a "significant" award to meet WP:ANYBIO. --MelanieN (talk) 16:54, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. MelanieN (talk) 16:57, 5 February 2013 (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.