Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fiona Hamilton-Fairley

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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 no consensus. I see there are two distinct AfDs for this page and

The Kids' Cookery School, the institution of which this individual is the CEO (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Kids' Cookery School). However, the coverage is clearly overlapping, and arguments for standalone notability become weaker when there is a closely related subject with overlapping coverage. Arguments are being made at both discussions to redirect or merge, but these depend on the fate of the other page. So, I recommend both these articles be considered together, so that the totality of the coverage may be considered in a single context, and all the possible outcomes (from zero pages to two) may be examined. Therefore, this is a no consensus with no prejudice against immediate renomination. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:20, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Fiona Hamilton-Fairley

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Fiona Hamilton-Fairley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete Does not appear to meet the criteria for notability. Has written three books but does not meet the criteria of

HighKing++ 12:14, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:21, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:21, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:21, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Note that a SPA [1] created this page and one on her

The Kids' Cookery School in 2007, then left the project.E.M.Gregory (talk
) 22:03, 6 August 2019 (UTC) [reply]

This article was created in 2007. 12 years of existence suggests that the "SPA" creation argument is a Red herring. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:44, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment First off, this editor is following me around pages I'm involved in because I highlighted worrying !voting conduct here.
  • NOTCLEANUP is irrelevant to this discussion - nobody is suggesting the article needs to be cleaned up.
  • She has indeed authored four books but one is self-published.
  • No, she does not qualify for ANYBIO. The OBE (or MBE) does not confer inherent notability.
  • No, not a single source meets the criteria for establishing notability. For example, the Telegraph has no independent content and relies entirely on quotations and information received directly from Hamilton-Fairley and is a classic example of churnalism. Similarly the Belfast Telegraph article has no independent content and simply publishes quotations from Hamilton-Fairley.
  • Please don't add every reference that mentions Hamilton-Fairley. We know she exists. Only provide links to ones that contain independent content and are *about* her for the purposes of ascertaining notability.
    HighKing++ 12:14, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
User:HighKing
Please consdider withdrawing the nomination per WP:ANYBIO as she meets two of the criteria: The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times.
The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field. There is no shame in admitting that you missed these things. Being honored/awarded by the Queen and her contributions in her field easily pass WP:ANYBIO. And then there is the matter of her books.
WP:HEY - this is not the same article you nominated. Lightburst (talk) 14:09, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Response I've already pointed out above that an OBE does not confer inherent notability (it helps but isn't enough). You say that the person has made "a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field". Do you have any sources on that? In fact - can you produce any sources whatsoever that meet the criteria for establishing notability? Can you provide any sources where somebody has generated independent content on her?
HighKing++ 14:44, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
It is vexatious that you claim that the Queen of England awarding the subject - Most Excellent Order of the British Empire (2019) award does not meet the standard of WP:ANYBIO. The award was given to exactly 276 people in 2019 out of 64.8 million (CIA Fact Book UK). Please reexamine: The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, Lightburst (talk) 15:11, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Vexatious? Please search the archives of the Talk page for
HighKing++ 21:53, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
That is a fallacious claim. I only found no such consensus or ruling anywhere. You cannot point to random editors making passing mention of an OBE as some sort of consensus. Editors who run out of reasons often claim that there is a consensus for their belief somewhere out there in the Wiki. If there was such a consensus you would point me to the RFC. I will leave the AfD now as we are al loggerheads. Lightburst (talk) 22:03, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Response It is rare that editors will question obvious things like "consensus" although recently I've even seen a cabal of editors harass and bully other editors who disagree with them on the meaning of "consensus" - I recently saw one editor harass an admin over their (entirely correct) interpretation of
HighKing++ 11:59, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
It is not rare to question consensus. Consensus can change based on just a few editors showing up: individual editors who come to AfDs often vote against policy or guidelines. I see it everyday on
WP:ANYBIO. Lightburst (talk) 12:31, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Keep There are lots of additional sources at
    WP:Before
    was ignored.
WP:Preserve would dictate a merger, if some errant editor thinks that deletion is warranted. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:02, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment First off, this editor is following me around pages I'm involved in because I highlighted worrying !voting conduct here. Can you provide any evidence whatsoever that
HighKing++ 14:44, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
The proof of the violations are in the article. Your incessant defensive personalization of
WP:AFD discussions does not help the project. I will not research and publish your edit history. Nor call you out for being a deletionist provacateur. You do not own the AFD process; so don't flatter yourself. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:56, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 02:59, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
@RebeccaGreen: Thanks for your diligence. I saw this notice in the The London Gazette that calls her award an OBE in the headline, and I missed the small print MBE. Lightburst (talk) 12:25, 14 August 2019 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Fiona_Hamilton-Fairley&oldid=910803636"