Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ned Bell


 * 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 no consensus. Per WP:NPASR. (non-admin closure) — UY Scuti Talk  18:25, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Ned Bell

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:BLP of a television chef, based entirely on WP:PRIMARYSOURCES without even the first hint of a reliable, independent source anywhere in the entire article. Further, while the overall tone isn't blatant enough to trigger my CSD G11 reflex, there are some passages of obvious advertorial writing here (e.g. "He is very passionate about creating globally inspired dished but, using local ingredient with a large emphesis on sustainable seafood.") He might certainly qualify for an article that was sourced properly, but that's not what this article is. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 23:12, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:02, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:42, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. There's no validity to the argument, "He might certainly qualify for an article that was sourced properly". WP:ARTN states: "Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article. If the subject has not been covered outside of Wikipedia, no amount of improvements to the Wikipedia content can make the subject notable. Conversely, if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability." If sources exist, he's notable. A quick search turns up plenty of articles. ( See here, here, here, and here or just search for yourself.) T.C.Haliburtontalk nerdy to me 05:46, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * VancityBuzz: non-notable blog that can never contribute toward notability at all. CBC article: glancing namecheck in an article otherwise not about him. Ottawa Citizen: Q&A-style interview in which he's talking about himself, which is a type of sourcing that AFD deprecates as unable to carry notability; it represents the subject talking about himself and is thus subject to the same PR problems as any self-published source (so it would valid only for supplementary verification of facts after all of the other sourcing around it has already vaulted him over GNG, and cannot contribute toward the GNG.) Vancouver Sun: article that's talking about his personal life rather than anything that would constitute a notability claim, so it's acceptable for confirmation of facts but does not contribute anything toward getting him over an inclusion test. Further Google search results: I see lots of glancing namechecks and blogs and non-WP:RS publications like cartt.ca, and not a lot of substantive coverage of the type it takes to actually satisfy GNG in a WP:BLP. Bearcat (talk) 19:39, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I believe Vancity Buzz is a reliable source, but let's assume it's not. We've still got CBC, The Vancouver Sun, The Ottawa Citizen, The Globe and Mail, CTV, The Telegram, The Guardian, The Winnipeg Free Press, Metro, The Province, etc. T.C.Haliburtontalk nerdy to me 06:16, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13(talk) 09:46, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.    Musa Talk   ☻ 11:49, 11 December 2015 (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.