Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carol Kicinski (2nd nomination)

Carol Kicinski

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Carol Kicinski
• Articles for deletion/Carol Kicinski (2nd nomination)

Carol Kicinski (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)

Having been deleted at AFD1 this was brought to DRV as new sources had been found. Additionally it was noted that the delete votes were before the article had been improved.

For the sake of simplicty, the DRV is here and the new sources are below.

• http://www.oregonlive.com/foodday/index.ssf/2011/07with_a_nut_crust_mascarpone_be.html
• http://tbo.com/dining/dunedin-author-offers-recipes-for-gluten-free-goodies-243413
• http://www.northjersey.com/food_dining/051811_In_Your_Kitchen_Salted_Peanut_Caramel_Brownies.html
• http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/05/dining/gluten-free-dishes-become-a-lot-more-tempting.html?_r=0
• http://eastvillage.thelocal.nytimes.com/2011/04/29/a-guide-to-gluten-free-eating/
• http://dunedin.patch.com/groups/around-town/p/dunedin-womans-cookbook-features-gluten-free-desserts

As the DRV closer I am neutral. Please note that I am a Coeliac but I closed this as it was hanging around the outcome was incontrovertible. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:11, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

• Keep the additional references confirm that this subject is notable and has received substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 19:17, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 19:20, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:29, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:29, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:30, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you all for your help with this, I think I'm now becoming more familiar with the process and how it all works on Wikipedia. I added the sources that are listed above and I changed a couple details here and there. I was wondering if some of you would be willing to look at the page and let me know if there are specific areas that need to be edited. The original text I had was very promotional sounding, I realize that now when comparing it to the current page. I don't feel that the language is too promotional sounding any more, but you guys have been doing this a lot longer than I have so I'd greatly appreciate your opinions on what else needs editing. And since I added the sources that were discussed in the DRV, can I assume that area of the article is up to standard? Please let me know your input, meanwhile I'll read the article again and do more research to see if there are any other details I can add/change. Thanks! --M.Renae (talk) 13:46, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

• Delete (original nominator). Far too close to being hard-working promotional material, rather than truly independent notability. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:37, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

• Keep: Those sources are clearly sufficient.—S Marshall T/C 16:54, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
• Keep: POV aside, WP:GNG established by multiple sources. I sure wish Nook and Amazon weren't in the article as sources, though. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 17:26, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I can remove Amazon and Nook as sources if you guys recommend that. I was using it only to show proof of the eBooks. There aren't book reviews, etc. that I can show elsewhere except the reviews on Nook and Amazon, otherwise I would have used different sources for that. Let me know what you all think. Also, Andy mentioned it still sounds promotional, can I get some specifics, is it an overall tone or certain sections of the article? Does anyone else have comments/suggestions about this? Thanks again all of you for helping me with this. --M.Renae (talk) 14:17, 5 December 2013 (UTC)