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. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 01:50, 9 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Anna Zanardi Cappon

Anna Zanardi Cappon (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

Résumé-toned WP:BLP of a consultant and writer whose claims of notability are not reliably sourced. Pretty much right across the board, this is referenced to primary sources, like her own self-published website and YouTube videos of her speaking and PDF copies of her own diplomas and the buy-it pages of her work on Amazon. There's just one footnote here (#2, "Come ti alleno il board") that might be a notability-supporting source at all, but it's paywalled and I can't read enough of it to tell whether it's about her, or just soundbites her as a giver of quote in an article about something else -- and even if it is substantively about her enough to count for something, one good source doesn't get a person over the inclusion bar all by itself if all the rest of the sourcing around it is junk. As well, the article was created by a virtual SPA with a username strongly suggestive of a paid PR agent, so there's a potential conflict of interest here. As always, Wikipedia is not a free advertising platform on which people are entitled to have articles just because Amazon.com and YouTube provide technical verification that they exist: she needs to be the subject of enough coverage in real media to clear WP:GNG, but that's not what the referencing here is showing at all. Bearcat ( talk) 20:35, 1 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 20:58, 1 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 20:59, 1 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 20:59, 1 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 21:01, 1 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 21:03, 1 April 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete: Fails WP:PROF and WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG. Subject's academic background is insufficient to qualify for any permanent scholarly position; her NLP/hypnosis training, based on a widely discredited psych theory, actually detracts from her academic background, suggesting charlatanism. Though the article claims she has written many books, the citation attached to that claim is a brief article she wrote. In short, there is no there, there. — Grand'mere Eugene ( talk) 16:12, 6 April 2019 (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.