Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gill Fielding


 * 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. czar 01:58, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Gill Fielding

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The notability of this person was discussed previously at Draft:Gill Fielding and then at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Gill Fielding a year ago where it was decided that she was not notable. Nothing seems to have changed since then which would mean that she is now notable. SmartSE (talk) 21:07, 15 February 2017 (UTC)


 * as participants in the MFD. SmartSE (talk) 21:10, 15 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete as a clear business listing of which our policies allow deletion. SwisterTwister   talk  21:26, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete a non-notable business person.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:52, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:54, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:54, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:54, 19 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment, have been unable to find any reviews of Fielding's books from reliable sources (Bridget book reviews popping up didn't help!), minute/non-existent WorldCat library holdings of her books ie. Riches, 1 library, The wealth alphabet, 3 libraries, Solving the Property Puzzle, 1 library, other titles not listed, so doesn't appear to meet WP:NAUTHOR. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete mere PROMO for non-notable individual.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:53, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete as promotional of a non-notable (though not utterly unknown) person, unless something substantial turns up and is added. "Was on some 'reality' TV and game shows, is rich, and volunteered for the Chamber of Commerce" doesn't equate to notability. The sources do not show that the subject has really done anything other than been on TV a few times (or if they do, then what this subject is actually notable for isn't covered in the current revision and it is not citing the sources that do show why Fielding is notable by WP standards). Even in a case of "famous for being famous", like Zsa-Zsa Gabor, there are loads of sources treating Gabor in-depth (including the famous-for-being-famous phenomenon). We don't have that here; Fielding's mentioned and credited, and sometimes briefly profiled, in the cited sources, nothing more. I predicted at the February 2016 MfD that a year later this person would not prove to be more notable, and that prediction has proven correct.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:41, 22 February 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.