Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nigel Tollerman

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. Tim Song (talk) 04:27, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nigel Tollerman[edit]

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

Contested proposed deletion. Sommelier who has received very limited coverage in reliable sources - fails WP:GNG. Claritas § 08:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article was previously speedy-deleted in September 2008. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is an article about a notable Sommelier who has received a great amount of coverage, including coverage in independent and reliable sources such as the Washington Post [1] and National Geographic Traveler [2]. There are more articles in Spanish, including this interview [3]. Many more links and references are found in the article. There are more than enough sources found to pass WP:GNG. Inniverse (talk) 15:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It might be worth noting that Inniverse has now been blocked as a sock puppet account. Tomas e (talk) 21:50, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's hardly relevant here. There has been no sockpuppetry in this debate, as Inniverse is the only advocate for keeping this article. If sockpuppetry were going on, you'd see plenty more 'keep' votes from new or single purpose accounts. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:44, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The so-called "great amount of coverage" seems to consist of mere passing mentions, which fails to meet WP:SIGCOV. Did the "keep" proponent above even look at those sources? Washington Post: trivial mention. National Geographic: trivial mention. Keegy: what is this, a blog/community site? Come on. Most of the other references given in the article appear to be local-interest pieces, and this encyclopedia has global scope. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not all the mentions are trivial. There are scores of references, which taken all together, add up to notability. He also writes wine columns that show up frequently as web hits. Your argument amounts to 'that he is not notable because he has too many trivial references', and that is a nonsensical way to determine notability. The scores of trivial references obscures the non-trivial references. Being successful at promoting his business should not hamper a claim of notability. To have a strong web presence, in my mind, supports his notability (doesn't detract from it). Inniverse (talk) 02:27, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point, but regardless of your feelings or mine, scores of trivial mentions do not add up to notability, according to our guidelines. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By definition, following a guideline is never mandatory. I believe that the references found support notability. That is why I am arguing for this article to be kept. Have regard for your feelings and trust your instincts. The guidelines are just that - guidelines. Inniverse (talk) 00:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: FYI: [4], Facebook page titled, "Reinstate Nigel Tollerman's entry in Wikipedia!" That page dates back to October 1, 2008, so there must have been a previously deleted article.--Milowent (talk) 19:27, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also see [5], French wiki deletion of article from May 2010 (7-1 delete).--Milowent (talk) 19:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was speedily deleted in September 2008. The deleted article had an uppercase title. The deletion log entry is here. I just noted it at the top of this AfD.

The French article looks like it has been deleted 4 times already since April. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:33, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yeah, there is something fishy going on with this article with the constant recreations even though it looks like this person hasn't done anything to merit more than trivial coverage in reliable sources. If he does anything to merit WP:SIGCOV, then there is no reason not to have an article on him. But right now, despite the user(s) constant recreation, there are no sources to make this anything other than an vanity article. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 04:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Amatulic and Agne. Sommeliers would typically achieve notability by winning the International Sommelier of the Year, or writing several notable books, not just by serving or selling wine, or owning stock in a wine selling company. To be frank I don't see a large number of sommeliers making the cut - notable winemakers would vastly outnumber notable sommelier. And the Facebook page doesn't exactly change my mind. Tomas e (talk) 21:39, 7 June 2010 (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.