Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Gill Fielding

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was delete. The consensus here is that at the moment there is insufficient evidence of notability. If the editor finds additional sources about their notability and wishes to request restoration, they can contact me via my talk page or make a request at deletion review with the new sources. Ricky81682 (talk) 00:49, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Gill Fielding[edit]

submitted 5 times without significant improvement. Enough is enough DGG ( talk ) 21:19, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now at best as there may be thoughts of solid notability but this is best deleted and started anew when better. SwisterTwister talk 06:34, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear DGG, prior to my last submission I blanked the article and rewrote to ensure every fact was linked to every reference and everything else was removed. Please would anyone in this debate look at the differences between drafts as I believe DGG is wrong to say there has not been significant improvement. If you agree, and also agree with SwisterTwister that notability may be solid then please vote to keep.
Neilho (talk) 11:01, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with DGG and SwisterTwister. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Devopam (talk • contribs) 25 January 2016‎
Surely the previous unsigned 'vote' must be discounted. Come on Wikipedians, this is 100% neutral, formally written and the subject is notable. By the way, do I get a vote? :)
Neilho (talk) 10:06, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, the sig is just fixed from page's edit history. Done. The concern at this point isn't the neutrality, but the lack of sources that cover the subject in depth rather than just mentioning her. If you think the draft can be improved with additional details from the sources, see WP:MINE for a mini-tutorial for how to get the most value out of a source – without engaging in original research (i.e. making stuff up). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 14:09, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This isn't going to work. Stifle (talk) 13:48, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is neutral and all material is supported by the references. The subject is notable, having been referred to non-trivially in numerous independent, reliable sources (including mainstream UK newspapers, a book chapter, independent magazines) and having appeared as the central character in a national TV programme and as a celebrity on further mainstream TV shows. Despite the assertions of DGG the last edits I made were substantial as a look at the difs will show anyone. I also added yet more independent references as people keep asking for 'one or two more' as if there is some sort of golden number of references that might appease them. I applaud SwisterTwister for at least conceding that notability may be solid though it is a shame they have decided to vote delete. At least they have given reasons rather than banal statements; I thought this was supposed to be a 'debate.' Well, I'm 3-1 down (presumably the unsigned vote counts as a 'spoiled' ballot). Let's see if we get any more votes for 'Team Keep' :)
Neilho (talk) 14:40, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You've made some improvements in tone, but not added references that will actually show notability--that the"significant" problem. The refs remain essentially all of them tabloids or mere local notices. DGG ( talk ) 20:06, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thank you DGG for acknowledging my efforts; I appreciate it. From my side of the fence I regard this as a borderline case of notability. I see The Times and the book chapter as being the strongest references since The Times is clearly a reputable source and the book is written by an established author using an imprint that is owned by a respected publisher. The Telegraph is weaker as it is reputable but a fairly trivial entry. I see the local references as a mixture of notices and non-trivial articles where the subject has been consulted on her economic views. Whether the Daily Express and Daily Mail are reputable has been a point of debate throughout UK media history. Some regard them as tabloids of the ilk of The Sun and The Mirror, while others regard them more as 'middle-market.' So I can't really defend them as reputable references if you have taken the former view. Overall, taken together, I think this is strong notability evidence, particularly since there is enough proof to show that several mainstream TV channels (including the BBC and Channel 4) have thought the subject notable enough to be interviewed, form the centre of a documentary and appear as a panelist. My biggest frustration is that other contestants on the Secret Millionaire (e.g Terry George (entrepreneur) and Chek Whyte) have had articles put straight into main space and have survived calls for deletion. I proceed with caution and go down the AfC route to ensure maximum editorial input and assistance with tone and end up with a deleted article (probably). It is a shame that WP:WAX can't be used as a way of ensuring consistency on Wikipedia. Anyway, thanks again for taking the time to clarify your position - I respect it!
Neilho (talk) 10:40, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless something substantial turns up and is added. "Was on some 'reality' TV and game shows, is rich, and volunteered for the Chamber of Commerce" doesn't equate to notability. Hell, I'm closer to notable than that, LOL. The sources do not show that the subject has really done anything other than been on TV a few times (or if they do, what this subject is actually notable for isn't covered in the draft and citing those sources; I'm not going to read every word of every cited source to try to write Neilho's article). Even in a case of "famous for being famous", like Zsa-Zsa Gabor, there are loads of sources treating her in-depth (including the famous-for-being-famous phenomenon); we don't have that here; they're mentioned and credit, and briefly profiled. This person is "kinda-recognizable-for-being-kinda-recognizable, to people who watch bad television in a particular market, lately, and will be forgotten in a year". — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 14:04, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. ☏. Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral and to look at impartial indicators of notability. This is very difficult since there are no clear guidelines about what you are 'allowed' to be famous for. However, there are plenty of examples of reality TV show contestants (e.g. all the Big Brother winners who have articles) and self-made millionaires (e.g. Sir Alan Sugar) making the pages of the Times, Telegraph, Guardian, Independent, etc. Are we not meant to set aside what we think of as 'bad television' and look at whether independent, reliable sources have 'taken note' of the subject? The introductory paragraph lists what the subject is notable for: '"a self-made multi-millionaire entrepreneur, property investor, wealth mentor, international speaker, writer and presenter best known for her appearance on The Secret Millionaire."' These terms are all taken form the 9 associated references listed in that opening paragraph. You've already said you're not willing to read every word of every cited source so I'll point one or two out. For example, the Times (a reliable source in anyone's book) refers to the subject as "an entrepreneur and financial adviser." The Daily Express refers to her as "a property tycoon" and "property mogul." Looking through the references you can see that the Daily Mail first mentioned her in 2001 as a 'wealth coach' and there was an article in the Western Morning News in January 2016 talking about her fame and ideas about the economy. This is a span of 15 years, hardly suggesting she "will be forgotten in a year." I accept this is a borderline notability case and I can see I don't have the community consensus - fair enough - but I feel I have presented the case for notability without resorting to matters of taste and without adopting a condescending tone. As for Zsa-Zsa Gabor; she's clearly notable as an actress. But if I were to go down the WP:WAX line I could point out the irony that The Secret Millionaire itself is deemed notable, yet apparently not those who are chosen to be the Secret Millionaire.

Neilho (talk) 10:39, 1 February 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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.