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. Close call, but Trident13 and Crazysuit make compelling arguments under WP:BIO. Very minor notability, but nobody appears to dispute wide name recognition.--Kubigula (talk) 03:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nadine Baggott[edit]

Nadine Baggott (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

I believe that the article fails to assert the importance or significance of the subject.

Ms Baggott's principle "achievement" to date seems to have been a single award, in 2004, for thinking up a clever title for an edition of the british magazine Hello. The title was recognised by the jasmine awards, which seems to be specifically aimed at that subset of the advertising and marketing industry that writes about perfumes. This seems to be a small prize in a little pond!

Additionally, the article has dubious or unverifiable sources both for the age and birthplace of the subject, and contains other unverified information. I believe that if this information were removed, it would almost collapse into a list of links. Furthermore, the article frequently attracts vandalism. DMcMPO11AAUK 02:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I do not believe that NB meets any of the general notability criteria for people listed at WP:BIO with the possible exception of wide name recognition through stating her name during her appearance in TV adverts.
  If I tell enough people my name enough times am I famous?
  I also feel that NB does not meet any of the specific criteria for either television personalities or journalists. She has won a single award in what seems to be a very narrow field - namely "journalism about perfume". Moreover, the award appears to have been for the title of an article, rather than the article itself. I don't feel this single award is significant recognition of her work by her peers.
  If I think up a snazzy advertising slogan, is that notable?
  In summary, despite the rejection of my request for speedy deletion on the basis that she is "a notable person", I still contend that she is not in fact notable. The most notable thing about her is probably the amount of money expended by Olay to various TV companies in pushing her onto UK TV screens. DMcMPO11AAUK 02:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, no attribution of notability to reliable sources. She has some name recognition, but the award is minor, and her position a notch below generally accepted levels of notability (e.g. the editor of a magazine, not an editor). --Dhartung | Talk 03:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: The article could also be seen as a 'vanity' article, possibly even written by NB herself.
  At times the article has been amended by people to show the general thoughts about her tv adverts. Some of these amendments were bound to be less than flattering but some were truthful. These seem to have mysteriously disapeared.
  If you are lucky enough to have a listing on here it should speak the truth...warts and all.
  For example see the 'Vanessa' page. 84.68.50.143 09:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment: I'm unsure of the position of the above anonymous contributor, I've engineered his attribution from the edit history to clarify that it's not my comments, although it was inserted in the midst of them. DMcMPO11AAUK 23:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Comment:(Im sorry that I edited your comments. This is the first time I have contributed to a page like this and was not aware my comments had to be separate to those of others. I thought it was ok to edit just the same as a normal page) HjDary.

• Keep. Several of the reasons given aren't enough for deletion, vandalism and unreferenced information is an editing issue. The suggestion that the article is "probably written by NB herself" is just silly. The article creator User:Trident13 is an editor with nearly 20,000 edits and is obviously not the subject. She hasn't really "done" anything to deserve her fame, but the TV adverts alone have made her one of the most well-known names (as opposed to people) in the UK, so she passes the WP:N standard for wide name recognition. Crazysuit 02:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment: From WP:N - "This page in a nutshell: A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." I would suggest that there are only three reliable secondary sources, an article in The Guardian that was critical of the current Olay advertising campaign, the Jasmine Awards website recording the 2004 soundbite "Scent to Seduce" award, and the IMDB entry. I don't consider the sum of those three sites to be significant coverage. I can't find any other source for material about Nadine that is both (a) independent of her or her employment and (b) reliable. I agree that she has widespread name recognition from the Olay advertising campaign, but is that enough to justify an article? DMcMPO11AAUK 08:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment: I don't consider websites quoting Baggott's endorsement of various creams, potions, lotions and treatments to be reliable secondary sources either. It's just one advertisement quoting another one. They're not quoting her because they respect her authority on the subject, they're quoting her because her comments support their sales campaign! DMcMPO11AAUK 08:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The claimed notability seems not to be the absurdly minor award, but the controversy over her appearance in some advertisements that have attracted unfavorable comment in the blogosphere. I don't consider that encyclopedic notability. DGG (talk) 22:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There's a lot more notability than this - she's appeared on UK TV shows a few times such as "This Morning" also, and that's besides being in a few adverts. If this article is deleted, perhaps the other more minor articles people fight to keep can be thrown on the scrapheap also. LuciferMorgan 11:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment: Her general notability is based on (a) journalistic articles, which have won her (b) one minor award in a small field, (c) occasional appearances as a television presenter, and (d) TV adverts and other product endorsements. She has some additional internet notability through the commentary that the adverts have attracted in the blogosphere. Bottom line - she is just a journalist who happens to write and talk about beauty products and treatments. Oops, I thought I signed this, deriving the correct sig from page history - DMcMPO11AAUK 16:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I originated the article, and I'd like to say now I'm NOT Nadine Baggott - I can't speak about some of the Anon's though who have "added" comments. I originally added an article because much as though I don't think she's the most wonderful or entertaining person in the world, a bit of investigation to me showed that she did pass WP:BIO on at least two counts: The person has demonstrable wide name recognition; Commercial endorsements of demonstrably notable products. I also don't particularly like editors "grooming" articles for deletion - before making your mind up on this one, have a look at the edit history. I will also add one more point - original version of the article has more references and seems closer to a better/more encyclopedic article: perhaps one of those unique articles which has deteriorated through co-operation; or just a refelction on her public view? Rgds, - Trident13 20:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment: I'm not grooming anything for deletion. I've reverted vandalism on several occasions, removed inaccuracies both in the original article text (for example birthplace is not orpington, despite the reference which was a blogosphere discussion where someone asked "did she come from orpington?") (she states she was born in Isleworth); and that seem to have been added later (e.g. the assertion that she owns cats - she states that she doesn't). I've added a bio infobox in which I've placed only that information that is verifiably accurate, and I've endeavoured to ensure that all material on the page is from verifiable sources. The only verifiable information that I've removed is that she has done a commercial tv presenters course - I don't think it's appropriate in a bio to list short vocational courses that the subject has attended. I've discussed just about all of this on the article's talk page as I've done it. And I've done it because although I believe that the article should be deleted, I also believe that if the AfD fails, the article is now better laid out and more accurate than before I started on it. DMcMPO11AAUK 01:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment: What "demonstrably notable products" does she endorse? As far as I can tell her endorsements are of a few face creams, potions, lotions and beauty treatments. I don't believe any of these products has achieved any particular notability in it's own right. Claiming notability with an argument that "person x is notable because she endorses product y, and product y is notable because it's endorsed by person x" just creates a loop linking person x and product y with the word notable in the middle, it's meaningless. DMcMPO11AAUK 08:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no notability and nothing of significance in article. NBeale 10:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and improve Multiple independent references. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 02:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment Extensive searching has failed to find any additional material, or even references for her date and place of birth - why don't you improve it? DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 15:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• delete Not notable, original author apparently can't expand it. Mbisanz 01:54, 19 September 2007 (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.