Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fiona Hamilton-Fairley

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 WP:AUTHOR. The article in Christian Science Monitor is churnalism for the school and only mentions Ms. Fairley in passing. 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]

  • Delete per WP:NOTPROMO. The fact that in over a decade no pages link to this one - except her cooking school - speaks volumes. That said, I do see a few old articles in a news archive: (Kids' recipe for healthy eating: MOST PARENTS AGREE, COOKING IS A VITAL SKILL CHILDREN NEED TO LEARN. KIDS' COOKERY EXPERT FIONA HAMILTON-FAIRLEY OFFERS lisa salmon TIPS ON GETTING LITTLE ONES BUSY IN THE KITCHEN, Salmon, Lisa. Liverpool Echo; Liverpool (UK) [Liverpool (UK)]26 Oct 2016: 8. ), (We can all go to work on an egg A pioneering cookery school is teaching as much about life skills as how to rustle up a shepherd's pie, says Kevin Gould. Meanwhile, family food guru Annabel Karmel has advice on how to get your children eating more healthily, Gould, Kevin. The Daily Telegraph; London (UK) [London (UK)]31 Aug 2002: 12.). If someone wants to attempt to make this into an acceptable article, I suggest that they make it a single article on school and its founder/director. If you make the attempt, feel free to ping me to reconsider. However, even though I am seeing a few sources, I am very skeptical that there is enough her to pass WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:11, 6 August 2019 (UTC)This user was indefinitely blocked as a sock August 8, 2019. Lightburst (talk) 01:16, 10 August 2019 (UTC) [reply]
  • Delete a non-notable chef.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:05, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: WP:NOTCLEANUP I have begun a cleanup and also added awards, and formatted the page. The subject is an author of three 4 cook books and she is a noted children's cooking expert. In addition she has received an award qualifying her for WP:ANYBIO Most Excellent Order of the British Empire (2019) In 2015 only 243 people received the award. It looks like less in 2019 (the year Hamilton-Fairly got the award) I added references but there are more WP:NEXIST like this one in The Telegraph and this one in the Belfast Telegraph from 2016 Lightburst (talk) 00:04, 10 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 WP:BIO, you'll discover this exact topic has been discussed many many times over the years and the consensus is that the OBE/MBE does not confer inherit notability. 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 WP:CONSENSUS and instead lecture and push the admin to rule on a blatantly wrong interpretation. It takes all sorts I suppose. BTW - I never said or implied it was a "ruling" - its an easy argument to win if you say it is a fallacious claim because you can't find a ruling. Have no fear - if I could find a "ruling", I would point you to it. What I actually said was that it was a (long-standing) consensus (I know (up till recently anyway) some editors don't understand what this actually means). Perhaps if I tweak the search parameters for you, you can spend some time reading the hundreds of other discussions where this topic has been discussed at AfD. I haven't personally read them all but from a quick scroll, they appear to agree with what I've said (e.g. consensus). 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:NFOOTBALL AfDs. There is not a rule about OBE and and there is not even guidance on the OBE award- there is just individual editors who showed up at AfDs. This person received an award that was given to less than .00001% of the citizens of UK in 2019 by the Queen of England. The award was specifically for her contributions in her field. That is number one and two of WP:ANYBIO. Lightburst (talk) 12:31, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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 WP:BEFORE was ignored? It has been pointed out to you on several occasions in the past by several different editors that you are wrong to make this accusation - it amounts to simple trolling and disruptive behaviour. You recommend a merger - a merger with what? Also, I've commented on the additional references above already - not a single reference meets the criteria for establishing notability. 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 list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 02:59, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have just clarified which award she received - it was an MBE, which is the lowest level of the order, and definitely does not give presumed notability. She might meet either WP:NAUTHOR or WP:GNG / WP:BASIC - I will check in newspaper databases etc for coverage. RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:31, 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"