Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anne Gaviola

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. --MelanieN (talk) 00:27, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Anne Gaviola

Anne Gaviola (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)

WP:BLP of a television meteorologist, making no substantive claim of notability and citing not one iota of reliable source coverage — instead, it's a perfect example of the classic Wikipedia fallacy that one can just take the topic's PR profile from their employer's website, rewrite it just enough to slide under WP:COPYVIO, source it to itself and call that a Wikipedia article. With, of course, the added bonus that if they ever leave the employer in question, as Gaviola did several years ago, even that primary source becomes a deadlink. But as always, a person doesn't get a notability freebie on Wikipedia just because you can primary source the fact that they exist — it takes reliable source coverage, supporting a substantive claim of notability. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 20:24, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  21:11, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  00:01, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  00:01, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

• Delete. Clearly fails GNG and BIO. No indication of notability at all, I wonder if this is possibly an A7 speedy delete candidate. mikeman67 (talk) 03:11, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. No notability, not even a credible assertion of notability. NewYorkActuary (talk) 22:07, 16 October 2015 (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.