Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shannon T. Boodram

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. MBisanz ^talk 00:10, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shannon T. Boodram

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

WP:Vanity - Article was created by sockpuppet of WP:PAID
WP:GNG - Sources listed primarily discuss her book "LAID"

Warning: WP:BIAS - I am biased towards nuking all of the WP:PAID, WP:SOCK, etc. flooded articles that have been dropped by the SockMaster and suspected associates: here PeterWesco (talk) 03:12, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

:Glad you have declared you are biased to the point where you won't even investigate to find out what major Canadian media sources are. Ill be filing a complaint for abuse regarding this AFD - its improper - and was clearly not researched. Any editor on wiki who knows much about Canadian media knows this article is based off of the gold standard of the Canadian media establishment.

Let me put all of these lovely references in the article - FYI what are you talking about.

http://thosegirlsarewild.com
http://madamenoire.com/237774/how-they-launched-it-taking-eccentricity-online-with-the-those-girls-are-wild-video-blog/
Book:
http://www.thestar.com/article/727822--what-teens-are-thinking-about-sex
http://torontopubliclibrary.typepad.com/word_out_2010/2010/08/laid-editor-shannon-boodrams-vlog.html
http://www.chapters.indigo.ca/books/Laid-Shannon-T-Boodram/9781580052955-575139-Review.html?cookieCheck=1
http://www.torontoobserver.ca/tag/shannon-boodram/
http://www.myvirtualpaper.com/doc/Desi-News-Corp/desi-news---february-2010/2010020401/10.html#10
http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/11/16/warning-parents-might-freak-out/
http://www.citytv.com/toronto/citynews/life/health/article/67040--laid-a-compilation-of-real-sex-stories-for-young-people
http://www.sealpress.com/books.php?author=216
TV:
http://metronews.ca/news/136307/little-camera-leads-to-big-things/
http://www.thestar.com/specialsections/schoolsguide/centennialc/article/861919--centennial-college-older-wiser-more-diverse
http://theagenda.tvo.org/guest/177974/shannon-boodram
http://houseofartisan.net/shannon/
http://www.rogerstv.com/page.aspx?lid=237&amp;rid=71&amp;gid=105125

~~Canadaindiefilms (talk) 03:12, 3 January 2013 (UTC)~~[reply]

I have spent many hours on your AfDs, sock puppetry, etc. these past weeks. Each one discussing the same issues of WP:GNG. As stated in the AfD the sources focus on her book. The book might pass WP:BOOK. As to the links you have posted: Rogerstv.com - no clue what this is supposed to show. TheAgenda.tvo.org is a tiny blurb that states she was a guest and a "blogger". Houseofartisan.net is a website. TheStar.com is about Centennial College - a search in the article for "boodram" produces 1 phrase: "notable graduate". The metronews.ca article is a puff piece put is about her (+1 ref). madamenoir.com is an interview (WP:SELF). http://www.thestar.com/article/727822--what-teens-are-thinking-about-sex - interview with her mother Olivia about her daughter's book. http://torontopubliclibrary.typepad.com/word_out_2010/2010/08/laid-editor-shannon-boodrams-vlog.html - Video Blog by subject of article (about book) - WP:SELF. http://www.chapters.indigo.ca/books/Laid-Shannon-T-Boodram/9781580052955-575139-Review.html?cookieCheck=1 - This is not a source - It is a book seller. http://www.torontoobserver.ca/tag/shannon-boodram/ - Lifestyle section blurb on the book. PeterWesco (talk) 03:48, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

:And what say you of MacLeans? Is it not a source? How about City TV? Is it not a source? Torstar mentions her as a notable Centennial College grad in a piece about the College - and wrote an interview with her mother about the book. As for it being in the Lifestyle section? Why is that relevant - that is where a SEX BOOK WOULD BE. Canadaindiefilms (talk) 03:56, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Meanie, Boatingfaster, or whichever sock I am talking to right now. We have these same debates on every AfD. 1 article, mixed in with 10 crap sources, does not mean WP:GNG. I am done debating sources with you, as I must handle the bogus 3RR you filed against me. Be gone sock... Be gone... PeterWesco (talk) 04:05, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Whoever those people are - they are not relevant to this. Its not bogus. What is bogus is that you didn't do your homework before nominating a legitimate article for deletion.~~

Here is a Youtube Video of her being called on http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eT4EiBCpoa4 - on CP24

One on CBC http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PbhBgqLnPU

TVO with Steve Paikin - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJajAFCZPM4

Guests on New Series Millions http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nf6z4sxtBZ8

On Much Music talking about you guessed it - sex http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v08auRPdMaE

~~Sure they're on Youtube but they are what they are - When the Ontario Gov't thought about changing sex ed rules 18 months ago sCanadaindiefilms (talk) 04:08, 3 January 2013 (UTC)~~[reply]

You charged someone for that poorly written article? Good thing it was only $5. Drmies (talk) 05:31, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As if someone paid for this? looking into the person more.Moxy (talk) 05:40, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The book may be notable: author seems not to be. most of references & tv appearances relate to it. All google hits are trivial or self-published. Certainly no claim to be a photographer other than having a flikr account. TheLongTone (talk) 09:05, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not seeing how this author is notable; being a "supporting host" and making a few media appearances plugging a book doesn't cut it. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:39, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on the references in the article: one to a major Canadian newspaper distinctly about Boodram, two distinctly about her and her work in compiling a book that is published by a division of the Perseus Book Group, who is not a vanity press by any means. Having been featured on television due to her work, and the attention, it seems that this is a page that should exist, but needs to have the promotional issues ironed out. Thargor Orlando (talk) 05:15, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GNG and WP:WRITER, having written a book which received considerable Canadian press attention. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:26, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only element of notability is the book.It's possibly notable. Normally when there's an author who has written a single notable book,but nothing else, it's a problem deciding whether to have an article on the book or the author. I usually advocate having the article on the author--someone who has written one successful book is reasonably likely to write another book, and the author's article gives a place to put it. the article on a book, on the other hand,i not going to be expandable, except in the very rare case it become the basis for a movie. Our decisions, though, have been inconsistent. In this case, I am somewhat concerned by the fact that the article does not seem to distinguish; under notable credits, it lists first her non-notable TV career. I conclude that the purpose of he article is promotional, and I would therefore would reject it. Given the current situation of WP, and the attack upon it from everyone who wants to use it for promotion, I now decide borderline notability by that factor. (Some editors here would delete for promotionalism alone, but I am unwilling to do that if the subject is clearly notable & it would be practical to rewrite. A year ago, I'd have said that for borderline notability also; now I do not. If someone without COI wants to write an article on the ebook, let them try. Incidentally, the ed. and his socks & sockmaster were blocked indefinitely on Jan 5. This article was started on Jan 1. A few days later, and it would have qualified for Speedy G5, as will any further work from this editor. DGG ( talk ) 05:24, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
KeepHi im from Toronto and doing a research project on boodram right now for school. I dont know how this works but Women's Post has named her the new breed of business women. http://www.womenspost.ca/articles/career/new-breed-businesswoman and she also writes for them. I may be a little biased but I think she's pretty cool. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.164.79.109 (talk) 17:32, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
While it's certainly possible that she might be notable enough for a Wikipedia article, this poorly written piece of crap ain't that article. Delete, albeit without prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody who knows how to write and source Wikipedia articles correctly — and who isn't charging service fees for the effort — decides to take on the job of writing a proper article. Bearcat (talk) 23:38, 8 January 2013 (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.