Talk:Frances Osborne

Untitled
She's a published writer, with hyper-linked sources. Whether you like it or not, I think that makes her 'notable' within Wikipedia's definition, no? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hellouise (talk • contribs) 00:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily. Let's ask the community. I'll post it on AfD. --Evb-wiki 03:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I thought that Frances Osborne merited her own entry hence I created the article, but the entry has been edited to read like a publisher's publicity puff. If you're going to quote from good reviews, you could equally quote from bad ones. I don't think she's an important enough writer to merit this level of debate. Surely best to keep to the facts for the time being. Hellouise 22:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I nominated this article for deletion because it was unsourced. During the discussion, another editor provided the reviews as evidence that the subject is notable. I added the sources and withdrew my nomination for deletion. If you have reviews expressing other points, feel free to add them to the article. Otherwise, if the article remains unsourced, I might renominated it for deletion as original research. --Evb-wiki 22:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

PR puffery
But surely the reviews can still be included as references at the bottom of the page without having clearly partial adjectives like "brio" in the main article? It just seems very unbalanced and more like an advertisement than an encyclopaedia entry. Hellouise 23:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Where did you get the factual details of her personal life? That/those would probably be the proper source(s) to cite in support of her notability. --Evb-wiki 23:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

From George Osborne's Wikipedia entry
But it says so all over the web, eg http://www.conservatives.com/tile.do?personID=4586&def=people.person.page Hellouise 14:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)