Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bonnie Blossman

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. postdlf (talk) 04:56, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bonnie Blossman[edit]

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

Article is a massive puff piece written by someone with a conflict of interest. The subject is a participant on a reality television program and her notability only extends from being on this program and other related programs.

She is an author but all of her books are self published (most of the references on the page are just links to Amazon or other book seller listings). She is also holds a PhD, but she does not meet the requirements of WP:ACADEMIC. —Ryulong (琉竜) 19:14, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable; footnote in TV show article. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:56, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable. – Recollected • 23:47, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability not found. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:29, 8 July 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Comment. Fails WP:PROF with a h-index of 2. I'm seeing some news coverage relating to conflicts between the cast of the TV show, but that's WP:BLP1E. Given the bizarre combination of interests the subject has, there may be coverage I've missed. -- 202.124.73.31 (talk) 06:56, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is some news coverage, but not enough for WP:GNG. -- 202.124.75.19 (talk) 00:26, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --John (talk) 13:02, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject is without a doubt an interesting person, but interesting and notable are different things, and I don't see much evidence of notability. Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:54, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
She is entitled to her own wikipedia page; she is a Author and is 'famous' within her show and a TV show reality star/Socialite. I'm sorry but if she isn't allowed her own wikipedia page then why is their a stupid/boring page on the name 'Candice' when it has no relevance to the name or origin? At least her page is interested and is visited. Samuelsparks96 17:01, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No one is entitled to anything on Wikipedia. Wikipedia has requirements on what could not be added and Ms. Blossman does not meet the requirements. All of the books she has authored are self-published. And her presence as a reality star/socialite is unimportant. Pointing out that what you deem as unimportant topics does not help your argument. Also, Candice is a disambiguation page pointing people to all persons named Candice.—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:33, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per failing WP:PROF and WP:GNG. -- 202.124.73.12 (talk) 10:32, 11 July 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.