Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tracey Medeiros


 * 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. ✗ plicit  00:16, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Tracey Medeiros

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

her single book that received reviews is definitely notable, but she is not as of yet, so i'd suggest deleting and redirecting as the creator insists on it's existence as a standalone article. I've also removed a few sources, the Yahoo source which was by a marketer that lists her as a client (the article is a word for word copy of the spy.com article written by the same person where she lists this), as well as boston voyager which is a known interview for pay site, and lastly the NYT blog, which funny enough has nothing to do with her whatsoever, the only mention is actually by a commenter, not even in the blog itself. CUPIDICAE💕 21:28, 16 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Thriley (talk) 21:39, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect to The Art of Cooking with Cannabis: Pretty much all sources I can find on her are about her book. I take this to show that she's not notable, but her book is. So, as a non-notable author of a notable book, this page should be redirected to the book. Tol  (talk &#124; contribs) @ 21:44, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. My reading of WP:AUTHOR basically means that any author who wrote a book that got two credible reviews is notable. CT55555 (talk) 22:58, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * No, her book can be notable but it doesn't mean that she herself is. If all that can be said is "x wrote y" then it should be redirected. CUPIDICAE💕  23:01, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, I'll quote it, so that people can form their own conclusions, because I still think if there are two good sources on the book, she's good.
 * "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews"
 * That said, I'm only saying this because you said the book is notable, a paywall blocked me reviewing the second source. So just to be clear, if you say her book it notable, then I think WP:AUTHOR guides us towards concluding the author is notable. CT55555 (talk) 23:11, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @CT55555 If someone only has a single notable book and there isn't that much additional biographical information on them (so... not Harper Lee, basically), they tend to get redirected to the book. -- asilvering (talk) 19:04, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation, especially as the WP:AUTHOR rule was something you first drew my attention to! :-) CT55555 (talk) 23:22, 17 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Redirect as per Tol. MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:03, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I have added sourcing for all of her books, which were not there when the article was nominated. I think these establish her as a notable cookbook author. Thriley (talk) 23:10, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep There is ample news coverage about her and her books. Newspaper.com shows 177 Matches for her name in quotation marks. Among them: Rutland Daily Herald (Rutland, Vermont) 31 May 2013, Fri Page B4  talks about her and to her.  An author is notable for their works.  The subject specific guideline is quite clear.  So whether they are writing about her or her books, its the same thing as far as confirming notability.   D r e a m Focus  00:23, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thriley (talk) 00:49, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions. Thriley (talk) 00:51, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Thriley (talk) 00:51, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Thriley (talk) 00:51, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - This is a work in progress as part of the WikiProject Women in Red. She does appear to be notable, and is a regular contributing editor to Salon.com. This nomination is very premature, made while the editor is still building the article. — Maile (talk) 02:03, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Notification was made about this AfD at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red. - Beccaynr (talk) 03:42, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep I have added sources and information from sources to the article, and it appears that WP:BASIC notability related to her collection of cookbooks is supported by multiple independent and reliable sources over time. Beccaynr (talk) 03:34, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per Beccaynr. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:47, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep the nominator and others who want delete/redirect have made an assertion that only the single book with an article has substantial coverage (disclosure – I created the article). But this fails on its face; there is substantial coverage of the author and their body of work as required by WP:BASIC. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:49, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. The WP:NAUTHOR and WP:BASIC notability has been shown by previous commenters. I also just want to add on top of those that google searching her name shows that she is frequently interviewed about using edible cannabis products by various food/lifestyle media - so in addition to the simple "box-ticking" passes of Wikipedia's notability guidelines, from a more subjective perspective, she additionally appears to be regarded as a notable subject expert in her field. -- asilvering (talk) 19:11, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Whether we need articles for both the author and her book is a question for a different venue. I might support merging the book into the author's page. pburka (talk) 15:26, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep, per discussion and adequate sourcing. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:28, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep, as already noted, passes BASIC and NAUTHOR. I agree, however, with 's statement about merging the two articles. Onel 5969  TT me 14:50, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: Since consensus seems to be not to delete, the decider will have to look at the merit of the merge/redirect arguments. My reading of NBIO is this. If WP:NBASIC is met, then this biography should not be merged or redirected to another article. NBASIC is only not met if the coverage of the individual, outside of the existing book article, is trivial. I don't think this is arguably the case at all: we have significant biographical details including educational history, occupational history, other works, and so on. To support a merge/redirect, one would have to invalidate almost all of the 20 existing citations – I see at most five dealing exclusively with the book in the existing book article; in fact all but those five cites were written before the book was published in 2021. In conclusion, the article can not be merged. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:05, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Hang on, I don't think anyone is suggesting this article be merged anywhere. The only mention of a merge is by @Pburka, with agreement by @Onel5969 - and they're both !voting keep. The question pburka raises is whether it might make sense to merge the book article into this one. But that's something that can be discussed on talk pages, if anyone cares to do so after this AfD. No one's suggesting it as an AfD outcome here. -- asilvering (talk) 20:13, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Clarified my comment as there were also two arguments for redirection. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:10, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I think there is more than enough press for the book to remain a separate article. Thriley (talk) 01:21, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge a Snow Keep? Randy Kryn (talk) 16:57, 22 April 2022 (UTC)


 * There are 10 Keeps, making this a Snow Keep as a separate article. The project banners rate this a Start class, and you don't merge a start article this far along. It's ridiculous to even consider a merge— Maile (talk) 01:17, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. I found a few more fine sources that could be added including Darien Times and Boston Voyager. There were already enough good sources in the article to keep it. Binksternet (talk) 03:36, 23 April 2022 (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.