Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Candice Kumai

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 no consensus. Has been rewritten close to the end of the AfD; if still deemed problematic may be renominated. Sandstein 07:15, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Candice Kumai[edit]

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

No external references. Promotional Rathfelder (talk) 21:30, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:31, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:31, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:31, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete overly promotional. Other than her website the only source is IMDb, this is not enough for an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:02, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, found a review, of Pretty Delicious in LA Weekly - "This is the sort of cookbook to be approached like a blind tasting of wines with really silly labels. It might be a good book (or wine) if you could get rid of your inevitable preconceived notions when you see a recipe with a title like "dill-lite- full cucumber tea witches" or "sexy strawberry cheesecake.""[1], and The Wall Street Journal calls her a "digital influencer"[2], but more is needed for notability. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:57, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:35, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find nothing that established notability for the subject of the article - I did a quick google search, and the hits were rather sparse in regards to the depth of coverage - her personal webpage, collections of her recipes, Twitter, Instagram and Facebook were the major hits. The article has no sources, and the primary contributor appears to be a SPA. Based on this information, I believe it it needs to be deleted. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 10:04, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- a non notable wellness journalist. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:23, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: LA Weekly above is a cookbook review (not about the subject) and WSJ appears to be a trivial mention. I found this from Vulture: "Where Do Most Runners-up on Reality Talent Shows End Up?: "Write a cookbook: Angelo Sosa, Mike Isabella, Hall, the Voltaggio brothers, Talde, and Viviani all have cookbooks to their name. Antonia Lofaso (season four and All Stars) wrote The Busy Mom’s Cookbook, and Marisa Churchill (season two) authored a dessert book, Sweet and Skinny. Candice Kumai (season one) has fashioned herself a health-food expert as the host of Lifetime’s Cooking Yourself Thin and author of multiple books, including Clean Green Drinks and Cook Yourself Sexy." All rather trivial. So still delete. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:22, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply - Reviews do not not establish notability as they fall under WP:Routine. Additionally, even if the book were notable it would not confer that notability onto to its author per WP:Notability is not inherited. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 07:12, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Jerem43, you are incorrect. WP:NAUTHOR states that under criteria 4c, an author may be notable for significant critical attention of their work. "The person's work (or works) (c) has won significant critical attention". Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:21, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - Reply - Megalibrarygirl, a review in a publication that falls under WP:Routine is not a critical review even if the reviewer is identified as a "critic". That would be the case if her books were on par with a publication like Mastering the Art of French Cooking, which is considered a milestone cookbook that altered the culinary landscape of the United States and in turn vaulted Julia Child to celebrity status. A standard, routine review in the Bakersfield Times, the New York Times or other newspaper, major or minor, by no means is considered receiving critical attention as required by part 4 of WP:Author. By critical attention as stated in that part of the WP:Notability guidelines, means that actual study of the works of the creator must be in depth regarding the work and its effects in society. While you will find lots of critical works on Ms. Child and her works, I believe you will have a considerable larger task in locating a true critical assessment of Ms. Kumai's work. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 07:08, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        Reply Jerem43, a "critical review" does not have to be a scholarly treatment of the subject. Reviews in the NY Times for example, are acceptable. Reviews in the news, magazines or journals are hardly "routine": only books that receive significant attention for various reasons are reviewed--I know: I'm a librarian. BTW, the term "critical attention" is not mentioned once on WP:Notability, nor is it specifically defined in WP:NAUTHOR, leaving it to the AfD participants to weigh and evaluate the info provided. Anyway, that's a little off-topic, but I think important to clarify. The subject of this article passes GNG for coverage under reliable sources which I added to the article. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:21, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources include in-depth here and in-depth here and here and in-depth here and in-depth here and here. That said, the current article could be improved, but that is not grounds for deletion, since she easily meets the general notability guideline.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:26, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- I would not call this in-depth coverage. These are articles related to the subject's promotion of her books, such as #1:

"Chef Candice Kumai is a health food wunderkind and the author of New York Times bestsellers Cook Yourself Thin, The Skinny Bitch, Recipe Rehab and more. She currently serves as the food-editor-at-large for Shape and Men's Fitness magazine and has a new book, Clean Green Drinks, available now. So, in celebration of all things Earth Day, we tapped Candice to dish on her healthiest (and yummiest!) juices and smoothies. Keep reading for her favorite recipes! And be sure to tune in to E! News tonight at 7/6c to see Candice make a perfect Earth Day-worthy drink." Etc. --

Recipes and/or interviews follow. The subject of Candice Kumai does not receive substantial coverage; these are mostly trivial mentions, insufficient (in my view) to establish individual notability and sustain an encyclopedia article. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:44, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 20:36, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and I wish I had commented before, all of it PR and the sources are basing with PR also, and that's expected with someone at this occupation. Nothing else suggests the needed substance. SwisterTwister talk 20:44, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We don't delete because an article is "promotional." That's not what AfD is for. She is covered under several reliable sources and Coolabahapple found reviews of her work. I'll go ahead and add to the article. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:24, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've rewritten the article and added RS. Please take a look. I also deleted the promotional material. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:36, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kudos to Megalibrarygirl -- the article is in great shape now.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:02, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article is an improvement, but the coverage and achievements do not yet add up to an encyclopedic notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:04, 20 August 2016 (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.