Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shannon Bennett

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 speedy keep. I'm withdrawing the afd--we have an adequate start. DGG ( talk ) 15:37, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shannon Bennett[edit]

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

He may possibly be notable, but this article is too promotional to stand. In the hope that someone might be willing to do the almost total rewrite that would be necessary, I list it here, instead of just listing it for speedy G11. Obviously, it should never have been accepted from AfC in this state. DGG ( talk ) 05:22, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. czar · · 06:53, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. czar · · 06:53, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. czar · · 06:53, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow - I think if he'd actually paid a marketing company to write his biography for him it would be less promotional than that! Given the username that created the article is the same as the name he gave his restaurant, I don't think we'll need Sherlock Holmes any time soon! Obviously just a horrible mish-mash of Facebook, LinkedIn and company promotional material from someone who doesn't quite get WP. No harm, no foul. That part can be easily fixed and I've made a start - removing the puffery, bare links, non-RS blog sources and just generally pegging it back about 435%.

The bigger issue is whether he is notable. I can tell you (being Australian) that he's been on all sorts of cooking shows and they are personal appearances (as in, he is well-known in his own right, not just for having a nice restaurant). He's probably been in a whole bunch of related magazines (eg. MasterChef Australia has its own magazine) and then a few other magazines because he's married to a fairly well-known actress (like Woman's Day and whatnot). Then there's the question of whether his many books (most of which would have been reviewed by various newspapers and the like upon release) make him a notable WP:AUTHOR. Maybe? I'm probably 50/50 on whether it should be kept, probably leaning weak keep. Stalwart111 07:11, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, wow. He probably is notable, judging by the way some contestants on a national tv cooking show were fawning over him. Given that it looks like this was created for promotion it may be best to delete this and let someone independent start over. duffbeerforme (talk) 09:33, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question, is appearing in trashy gossip magazines like Woman's Day good enough to satisfy WP:GNG? I'm thinking probably not, and there doesn't seem to be any coverage in what I would consider to be reliable sources of this person. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:50, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Answer - probably not, but I used Woman's Day instead of That's Life! or New Idea for that reason; it's perhaps the least trashy of the trashy Australian weeklies. I suppose the secondary question to that would be whether appearing on multiple cooking and other television shows constitutes significant coverage? Stalwart111 10:23, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It needs a bunch of TNT to it. The self promotion really needs to be pruned... but Canberra Times has 60 references to him. I think he passes notability. So yeah, some bold pruning the hell out of it to make it not promotional. --LauraHale (talk) 12:24, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I just blocked the creator (someone working for the restaurant, it seems) for their username, so they probably won't be participating in this discussion. But I agree that despite the fluff there's someone we should have an article on. Daniel Case (talk) 16:52, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article's been pruned, what remains doesn't seem bad enough that it needs to be trashed, and he seems to be notable. Nyttend (talk) 03:06, 2 May 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.