Deletion of Gabrielle David

Comment: I'm finding some things here and there like https://www.bostonglobe.com/arts/books/2016/07/19/the-hole-story-sweet-tale/MDbo6lrUyKeFR1b0MHzPBM/story.html this that shows that she ''might'' be notable, but if there is enough out there I'd suggest that this get -d and started afresh by a non-COI editor. There's so much puffery and promotion in the article, along with unsourced claims, that this would pretty much need to be re-written from scratch. What makes the unsourced claims problematic is that other than it posing a BLP issue, I'm concerned about some of the vague claims in other articles, like the claims of the Phatitude magazine winning an award. Neither the magazine article or website specify what this award actually ''is'', which means that it could be anything from something that could give notability to an award given out by a non-notable self-published blog or a vanity award. In other words, in an attempt to promote all things IAAS, the editors have actually done more harm than good because they've just ended up casting far more doubt on the veracity of the claims. I don't doubt that this might have happened in some form or fashion, but now we have to question whether or not any of the claims are getting puffed up beyond what they actually are. This is why COI editing - specifically article creation and the addition of major chunks of text - needs to be done very, very carefully. From a personal standpoint this is why I've refused some requests from people or organizations I'm familiar with, where the COI and issues (tone, COI) pose too much of a problem
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over (WP:TNT)