Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brigitte Mars


 * 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 delete.  MBisanz  talk 21:48, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Brigitte Mars

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Lacks notability. References given in the article are grossly inadequate - a very brief (and likely self-written) contributor bio on HuffPo, and two other references to non-RS. An editor has provided some additional links on the article talk page, but in my opinion these do not demonstrate notability as none of them are actually about the article subject or discuss her more than in passing. Thparkth (talk) 23:41, 10 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:23, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:23, 11 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete - fails WP:FRINGE. Blythwood (talk) 04:48, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The topic is a biography of an herbal expert. I don't see the connection to WP:FRINGE. Please explain. ~Kvng (talk) 01:02, 16 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:25, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:25, 11 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete no demonstration of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:39, 11 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete - Spot on. Subject wrote the main citation and article has many places that lack the citations needed for wiki. Subject lacks notability even with proper citationsAllaboutjane8181 (talk) 23:37, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm sure you appreciate that problems with the article are not a valid reason to support deletion. Only your claim of lacking notability argues for deletion and I ask that you reevaluated that in the context of the new sources I have presented below. ~Kvng (talk) 00:59, 16 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - Significant coverage in uncited reliable sources:
 * "So I called Boulder's Brigitte Mars - an herbalist and author of The Desktop Guide to Herbal Medicine (Basic Health Publications, $19.95) and 11 other books on herbs and nutrition. Mars also holds workshops and seminars and teaches at Naropa (see brigittemars.com).",
 * "Mars is the author of The Sexual Herbal and offered to make meals that contained a lot of cinnamon. The results? "After a week, she winked at me."",
 * "Brigitte Mars, a Boulder-based herbalist and nutritional consultant, says natural medicine is ``going mainstream.''",
 * "herbalist Brigitte Mars, author of Beauty by Nature...believes that the most pampering thing a person can do for themself is to take a bath.",
 * "Brigitte Mars, author of several books, including Herbs for Healthy Skin, Hair & Nails (Keats, 1998)",
 * "Brigitte Mars co-authored "The Hemp Nut Cookbook," which includes recipes for scones, pasta and chocolate torte made with hemp.".
 * I added these to the article's talk page when I deprodded. I'm not sure comments from, and  have taken these into account. ~Kvng (talk) 14:24, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I can't read the entire articles on that site, but it doesn't look like any of them are actually about Brigitte Mars, or talk about her in any kind of depth. Am I wrong? Thparkth (talk) 14:57, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The coverage is mostly in the context of quotes from the subject in her capacity as a prominent herbalist. I have added excerpts of material about the subject to my post above. In sum, I believe this constitutes significant coverage and indicates she's considered by journalists to be a quotable expert on the subject ∴ notable. ~Kvng (talk) 00:59, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I see these examples as being trivial, and failing to meet the WP:GNG standard for significant coverage. Thparkth (talk) 14:53, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  10:27, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - Subject is mainly covered in HuffPost blogs and only mentioned in passing in reliable sources, thus lacking significant notability. Meatsgains (talk) 13:53, 17 June 2016 (UTC)


 * 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.