Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jo-Ann Armao

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. → Call me Hahc21 04:12, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jo-Ann Armao[edit]

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

Delete, I'm going to say that this person doesn't actually pass the gng or the guidelines for wp:professional. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:41, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd disagree, Armao seems to have gained quite the reputation in D.C. just by reading that article from the Washingtonian.Davidhar (talk) 18:51, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Davidhar, I disagree there doesn't seem to be WP:SIGCOV Per WP:CREATIVE this person must show thet the person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.

The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique. The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 20:02, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I see one article about her in the Washingtonian blog.[1] That's about it, not enough to satisfy WP:GNG. Clarityfiend (talk) 17:24, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I don't see that she passes WP:GNG yet, although she she could yet become notable. I'm not yet convinced either way. Bearian (talk) 20:30, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:01, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Run of the mill journalist with no claim to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:17, 30 June 2014 (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.