Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carol Kicinski

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:10, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Carol Kicinski

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Questionable notability and over-promotion of a "personality". I also have concerns about Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Simply Gluten Free Magazine and Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Simply Gluten Free Omnimedia, Inc. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:08, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi Andy, I just wanted to let you know I made some major edits to all three pages. If you could look them over when you get a chance and let me know if you have any other concerns about them that would be great. Thanks so much. --M.Renae (talk) 14:57, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Overt advertising for the person and her works. There is only one reference that meets the guidelines for reliable sources. The others are pretty much calenders of events, recipes and other stuff that does not confer notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerem43 (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think a combined article on these subjects would be appropriate. There isn't oodles of coverage, but a Google News search shows several sources covering her, her cookbooks and blog in reliable independent sources.Candleabracadabra (talk) 22:23, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 12:23, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.