Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catherine Kaputa (2nd nomination)


 * 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. ✗ plicit  11:41, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Catherine Kaputa
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Cannot find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources, either those in the article or elsewhere online - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Cannot find any proper reviews for her books. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR. Run-of-the-mill businessperson. Edwardx (talk) 11:22, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, Business,  and Florida.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:03, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete - The article seems like unambiguous WP:PROMO for a WP:MILL "motivational speaker" and author of self-branding strategies. The sourcing is very weak, consisting of an alumni newsletter, LinkedIn, two Amazon book sales links, primary sourcing to herself and name checks - I could find nothing in a BEFORE search that was significant coverage in independent sources. Does not meet notability criteria for WP:NAUTHOR nor WP:GNG. Netherzone (talk) 14:00, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Created by an SPA, promotional. She has published many books of "self-help" with a business bent. I do find some of her books by the hundreds in library collections, one with a short review in Publishers Weekly, and a different one in Library Journal. I still don't think this rises to the level of WP:NAUTHOR - it would still need additional substantial sources such as articles about her or in depth book reviews. Lamona (talk) 20:33, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete An impressive woman. That aside, as written the article has inadequate sourcing to meet notability for WP: GNG. Unreliable coverage and not independent. Reads somewhat like WP:ADMASQ. NiklausGerard (talk) 07:07, 16 April 2022 (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.