Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Candice Hutchings


 * 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 keep. Sourcing identified after relisting swayed the discussion in favor of keep. Still probably just borderline notability, but hopefully stronger sourcing will develop over time. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  12:08, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Candice Hutchings

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Scant coverage in independent reliable sources, no awards won, fails WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE. Rentier (talk) 02:04, 12 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Author Comment - Plenty of public recognition in Canada and the US as a public figure. Note for Rentier - no attempt was made per WP:BEFORE to improve the page prior to nom Styles01 (talk) 00:09, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Meets WP:GNG with several references from independent reliable sources including: Canadian major news outlets such as CBC (Canada's largest public broadcaster), SiriusXM (The Largest Radio Network in The United States and Canada), The Social (CTV - One of Canada's largest public broadcasters), The Toronto Star (one of Canada's largest news publications). Styles01 (talk) 03:22, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * As for WP:CREATIVE -- in the field of vegan cooking, Hutchings is one of the first to create vegan junkfood and vegan comfort food, with one of the largest online followings in the space. (See statistics and references on page).  Further, the body of work extends to over 300 videos, an internationally published cookbook, and over 300 recipes online, the subject of over 200,000 monthly views on each the videos and webpage medium.  Styles01 (talk) 03:02, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:10, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:10, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:11, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Dissection of sources, as of now, without considering their reliability:
 * The subject's own Youtube channel
 * A brief mention among 50 other Youtubers
 * Two word mention among 20 other channels (the two words are "Edgy Veg")
 * A brief mention on a blog among 20 other Youtubers
 * A brief mention among 10 other channels
 * Looks like a TV appearance by the subject (video not available in my region) - an interview, which contributes little to notability
 * Looks like a TV appearance by the subject (video not available in my region) - an interview, which contributes little to notability
 * Looks like an appearance in a podcast - an interview, which contributes little to notability
 * Four word mention ("Candice Hutching (Edgy Veg)")
 * Rehash of the previous news, this time the subject is not mentioned.
 * Yet another news about the same thing, this time the channel's number of subscribers is listed in addition to a quote from her. Trivial coverage.
 * Link not working
 * The subject's own video
 * The subject's own book (see Articles for deletion/The Edgy Veg Cookbook)
 * A (short) interview with the subject
 * No mention of the subject here
 * Three word mention ("The Edgy Veg")
 * Three word mention ("The Edgy Veg")
 * Three word mention ("The Edgy Veg")
 * According to WP:GNG, significant coverage should "address the topic directly and in detail". What I see here is a collection of brief and trivial mentions that does not satisfy this criterion. Rentier (talk) 10:47, 12 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Author Comment - 10 Additional citations / references added to further corroborate the meeting of WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE Styles01 (talk) 15:32, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * specifically addressing from WP:CREATIVE
 * The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.
 * The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique.
 * The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work.
 * The persons body of work has has won significant critical attention
 * The additional citations now show a wide variety of peers and successors referencing the subjects work in depth, as well as a variety of reliable sources covering the subject or their novel contributions craft in depth. They also show a variety of "roundups" of the top vegan chefs on the internet (best 50, best 20, best 11, best 10) specifically and directly noting the subject.
 * Per WP:GNG "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" several of the references are from Canadian, UK or US national media outlets (CTV, CBC, SiriusXM, Toronto Star, Toronto Sun, Daily Mail, Toronto Guardian), several of them are ENTIRELY on the subject, and those that aren't include the subject of moderate mention within a shortlist of other notable subjects. " Significant means that the subject is mentioned in the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material."
 * re: #6 and 7 above - they are full segments on one of Canada's largest national broadcasters, where the subject is sharing her craft with a studio audience, and a panel of hosts (Canada's version of "the View" in USA). The show is widely viewed by a national audience in Canada. Presumably if it was the American "View" the commenter would consider that notable.
 * re: #12 - the webmaster has said that they are currently porting the site to a new server, that new server will hold this page
 * updated #16 to include mention - awards to be announced next week. Styles01 (talk) 16:28, 12 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep Based on the above, and given the subject is the author of an internationally published work by a reputable Canadian publisher, has had featured appearances in Canada's top media, combined with the easily verifiable size of this person's fan-base (as evidenced by the cited videos and social media links), this article meets WP:GNG Essabowser (talk) 20:38, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note to the closing admin. Please note that is a paid editor who has been maintaining a Wikipedia page of another Canadian YouTuber.  Rentier (talk) 19:56, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Clarification. I have a personal relationship with another unrelated Canadian YouTuber. I am not a paid editor, nor do I have a professional or paid relationship with the subject of the article. However, my profession is working with Canadian YouTubers, so I consider this my field of expertise.

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete per Rentier. Fails WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE. - GretLomborg (talk) 06:12, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:31, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep A news search shows a number of usable sources, some press releases, but not exclusively. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  15:44, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete as by policies WP:Deletion policy and WP:Not, because what's in the article is highly suggestive of a personal website or listing, and that can be removed without any exceptions; examining the sources above, there's only a dozen and they're all announcements including from special interest or trade publications therefore not usable for independence, worse if some of them, a quarter of them are labeled press releases. The first Keep vote is only a WP:ITSIMPORTANT. The continual basis here is whether it's suitable for an independent encyclopedia and non-independent sources wouldn't fit that. Our encyclopedia goals have always been based on neutrality and integrity and accepting any kind of promotionalism, even if recoated, would not convince. SwisterTwister   talk  21:34, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep She is covered in reliable sources (like Toronto Star) over time as has displayed above., your argument that the article is "highly suggestive of a personal website or listing" isn't a a valid argument for deletion. Neither does whether or not an article is "promotional" become a valid argument for deletion since that is a problem that can remedied with editing. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:54, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, no because the relevant policies are WP:Not webhost and WP:Promotion, both of which say can be an immediate factor in deletion alone without guidelines. In fact, GNG explicitly states "nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity, nor is the topic unsuitable for any other reason" which links WP:What Wikipedia is not, therefore the policy takes clear priority over gudelines. Can you describe a policy that would supersede these? Because while I cited 2 in mine, I'd like to know what would counter that, if at all.  SwisterTwister   talk  21:59, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, WP:NOT states that articles must be verifiable with independent, third-party sources, which this one is. Also, WP:GNG in regards to promotion addresses articles which do not pass ANYBIO, which this one does as per The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition. If the subject is covered in multiple reliable sources as turned up by and added by me to the article, then we are not dealing with a promotional article; we may instead be be dealing with promotional tone which can be addressed through editing. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:18, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * That is not the sole factor, what is instead the article suggests a webhost profile of which we have WP:Not a webhost. The sources offered as I highlighted above are actually announcements and notices in special interests publications such as how-to's guides, and for that, we actually have WP:Not a guide which says "should not be guides or describe how to use it". Also, GNG is not able to supersede WP:Promotion since the latter is a policy, regardless of sourcing. Adding to this, WP:Deletion policy importantly notes: "anything unsuitable for an encyclopedia" which would apply here. "multiple reliable sources " is not entirely the case since that user who offered them, agreed there were press releases. See GNG section that reads Publication in a reliable source is not always good evidence of notability: Self-promotion, autobiography, product placement and most paid material are not valid routes to an encyclopedia article. I'd willingly reconsider if you can substantiate how this directly affects policy and what specific section, since

I also had quoted above the part where GNG says "is the topic unsuitable for [WP:What Wikipedia is not". I agree with the philosophy that we must ensure we cut no corners in accepting content and this article shouldn't be taken any differently, therefore my analysis. SwisterTwister  talk  23:45, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Passes WP:GNG per . Joseph2302 (talk) 07:31, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Yes, some of the sources are passing mentions. But several of them are "significant coverage", and I think this subject passes the threshold required by Wikipedia. I know that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid reason for a keep, but I once nominated a YouTube cat for deletion and the keep votes drowned out the delete votes about 10 to 1, and that cat had way less significant coverage than this person. I don't see how you justify deleting this article. Rockypedia (talk) 01:43, 29 July 2017 (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.