Talk:List of The Great British Bake Off finalists (series 1–7)

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Redirect Candice Brown?

The following is a closed discussion of a requested merge. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the requested merge was: Merge. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:46, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This list page was created as the result of the discussion made at Talk: The Great British Bake Off#Individual articles about Bake Off winners. My redirect of Candice Brown page was reverted. Now let's discuss the fate of the article. Shall Candice Brown be merged/redirected to this list article? George Ho (talk) 12:58, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: There seems to be plenty of WP:RS to constitute notability. What is your reasoning for wanting to merge the article? --Cerebral726 (talk) 15:50, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Despite notability, I found the article too small to let it stand alone, especially for a long time. I'm also not confident that even developments or expansion can improve article quality over time. I thought that merging into the list, recently moved from draft, is the best way. --George Ho (talk) 16:50, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Being WP:TOOLITTLE is not a reason for deletion. Articles can be any length if the subject is notable. Since she seems to meet WP:GNG, I don't really see any reason to merge the article over. --Cerebral726 (talk) 17:44, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't the deletion discussion, but there is WP:AADP#Article size. Per WP:MERGEREASON, size can play factor in merging. Per WP:PAGEDECIDE, even notable people can be covered as part of broader context. Of course, that rule is subjective, and there is WP:NOTMERGE. --George Ho (talk) 18:05, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fair points, and I appreciate the links. I have to lean towards keeping it as is. Perhaps someone else may want to chime in, but there seems to be room for this article to be expanded, and she has become notable for a number of other activities since winning the show. I see now its less cut and dry than I originally thought, though. --Cerebral726 (talk) 18:15, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Quoting Drmargi from Talk:The Great British Bake Off#Discussion about Candice Brown article. George Ho (talk) 20:47, 4 May 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Definitely. She never materialized as much of a celeb, and has faded away.
— User:Drmargi 20:39, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Merge: looks like the content we currently have on her is simple enough to be contained in the larger list, and there isn't much advantage to having this as a standalone article (nor to having the same content identically at two locations). Per WP:N (e.g. last paragraph of the lead), things that meet GNG can be merged when it's sensible to do so. — Bilorv (talk) 08:21, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Drmargi and Bilorv. starship.paint (exalt) 07:26, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Redirect James Morton (baker)?

I have concerns about the notability of James Morton (baker), well known as contestant of The Great British Bake Off (series 3) and writer (if not cookbook writer) and doctor(?). Shall the article be redirected to this list? --George Ho (talk) 20:21, 24 September 2021 (UTC); edited, 20:23, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Marginal. Given that he continued to receive coverage some years after the show for other things, it could be argued that he may be considered notable. However, I don't have strong feeling whether it stays or gets merged. On another baker, it might be possible to resurrect Andrew Smyth (baker) some time in the future since he produced a show called Baking Impossible for Netflix and will be a judge on it. Hzh (talk) 21:20, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take this as no objection to redirect/merger then. Right? –George Ho (talk) 18:55, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, it's marginal, but if you insist that I make a decision, I'd lean keep given his continuing coverage after the show, for example as an author [1][2][3][4][5], something that's independent from the show. I won't say that this is very strong evidence for keep, so if someone merges the article, I'd just shrug, but my preference would be for keep. Hzh (talk) 08:13, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I won't challenge your argument or decision, but I will challenge your selection of sources. The sources may be independent of the show, but I'm uncertain whether they're independent of Morton. The Independent article, The Herald article, and The Irish News article are just mostly interviews, i.e. one of primary sources. I have used interviews as sources, but I learned well enough that interviews themselves aren't sufficient to verify notability (but can verify facts). Well, The Herald one has passages written in third-person narrative, but I don't know whether it verifies Morton's notability well. The Irish News article also has instructions for one of Morton's recipes, and that's much about it. The Yorkshire Post article is fully inaccessible at this point, so I'm unsure whether it verifies his notability. George Ho (talk) 09:49, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, the evidence is not very strong. If there is another article like the BBC one on a separate issue (there are other sources on the same issue), I would say a definite keep, but as it is, it's marginal. If you feel strongly about it, then go for AfD, you might find support there for a merge. Hzh (talk) 10:23, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would support a merger given marginal subsequent coverage. Barkeep49 (talk) 23:55, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This discussion was listed at WP:RFCC. I have elected not to close it due to insufficient discussion for consensus determination. Since there has been no further comments in a couple of weeks, it is unlikely that a clearer consensus will emerge in the near future. Consequently, I have instead WP:BOLDLY turned the article in question into a redirect; content may be merged from the article history. This may be freely reverted by anyone. If it is not reverted, I would view that as implicit consensus in favour of redirecting/merging. If it is reverted, perhaps that will lead to further discussion such that a clearer consensus emerges. TompaDompa (talk) 23:57, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Kim-Joy?

I'm concerned about the article quality of Kim-Joy and the article's ability to grow further. Furthermore, the person's notability may be marginal and/but not enough to guarantee a stand-alone article. Also, the article is tagged with "COI" and has sourcing issues. I propose merging/redirecting the page to this list. --George Ho (talk) 00:30, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Update: I went bold and then redirected the Kim-Joy page to the list. If you object, then please don't hesitate to revert the redirection I made. --George Ho (talk) 01:43, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge John Whaite?

John Whaite is known as a baker and for his Bake Off appearance. He wrote cookbooks and appeared elsewhere on television. He recently appeared in Strictly Come Dancing with his dancing partner Johannes Radebe for his historic same-sex pairing. However, as I believe, his notability may be marginal, and I'm unsure whether his marginal notability is sufficient enough to guarantee a longstanding stand-alone article. The marginal notability of runner-up James Morton didn't save the biographical article enough from being redirected to the list (see #Redirect James Morton (baker)?). I think the John Whaite article would suffer the same fate. --George Ho (talk) 07:55, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I think the subject is notable enough to have their own article on WP. He's won a season of GBBO, was a contestant on Strictly, has written cookbooks, and made other media appearances (such as Attitudes cover here). RS have covered him in more than just his GBBO coverage; the charity Mind, for example. --Kbabej (talk) 23:59, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Long term notability, major coverage (as in detailed coverage focused on him in all major British newspapers and news media) as recent as December last year. You can even find news about him dated today. Also presented his own TV show. Has moved beyond GBBO to be a celebrity on his own right. Hzh (talk) 09:27, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Giuseppe Dell'Anno?

The draft of the article "Giuseppe Dell'Anno" was recently approved by GRuban. Before approval, I questioned the state of the article, which may have some sourcing issues, and the subject's notability (Talk:Giuseppe Dell'Anno#More likely fails WP:notability), yet GRuban disagreed with me, citing continued coverage and... list goes on in that (other) discussion.

I appreciate the efforts done by the article creator, who is also the article subject himself, and GRuban's review and analyses. However, the article as-is is... I don't know how else to describe its so-so or poor quality. But the subject used his own academic publications to verify his education. I tried to find secondary sources verifying such info without avail. Furthermore, valuable info is already in List of The Great British Bake Off finalists#Giuseppe Dell'Anno (winner).

With the article's current state, I don't feel like awaiting continued coverage to improve the article. Rather it should be redirected to this list. George Ho (talk) 22:01, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand - why don't you think The Times article verifies his education? [6] --GRuban (talk) 22:48, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to the other Times article (via Gale A683765620), written by another Bake Off contestant Henry Bird. The one you were referring to (Gale A723377487) verifies his 2002 emigration from Italy. Neither article AFAIK mentions his education (when using Gale database), and I couldn't thoroughly find "university", "college", "school" or other related terms. I wonder whether and how you can fully access The Times articles. George Ho (talk) 23:05, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The straight forward way, having a subscription. It straight out says he studied chemical engineering in university in Pisa. George, and I say this with the greatest respect, as a fellow George, if you can't read the best sources that are right in the article, your words "I tried to find secondary sources verifying such info without avail" are not nearly as valuable as they otherwise would be. --GRuban (talk) 23:33, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I added the Pisa one in the list's section. George Ho (talk) 23:44, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! In fact, I can see that much of your text from the list section needs to be added to the article. My compliments, it's well written. Can always trust a George! That said, I do think the article has sufficient content to be better stand-alone than solely as part of this list. I'm reading on a rather large monitor, and this list is already 11 screens long for me, it's 110KB in length. That's not all readable prose, but still; there are Wikipedia:Featured articles that are shorter. I think Giuseppe Dell'Anno has sufficient notability as a standalone article. We need both - we need the list, for someone who just wants to skim all the winners, and we need the article, for someone who wants more depth on a notable person. --GRuban (talk) 23:59, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ruby Tandoh

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of the discussion (and subsequent editor actions) seems to be a clear restore. There's only one unstruck objection, and that requested more sources to prove notability, a much-edited version of the article has been restored and improved by multiple editors including some of the original objectors. JeffUK (talk) 15:54, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was adding an image to this article (as I do occasionally) and I found that the description of Ruby Tandoh on the place I got the image from, The British Library, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ytHgPsjTy0, barely mentions "The Great British Bake Off". Here is what it says:

"Ruby Tandoh is a writer who explores the places where food intersects with popular culture, politics, art and identity. She started as a Bake Off contestant in 2013, reaching the final. Soon after she began a baking column for The Guardian, followed by cookbooks Crumb and Flavour. With her 2018 book Eat Up!, she explored everything from the magic of fries on a night bus home to the impact of food on mental health. March 2021 brought the publication of Breaking Eggs, an audiobook that guides listeners through the foundations of baking in real-time. This will be followed in October by Cook as You Are, which will show all cooks, regardless of circumstance, how they can create magic from the most mundane of ingredients."

So I was going to wait until the above merge discussion died down and see how people here would feel about a separate article for her ... only to find out that we had had a perfectly reasonable, non-stub, separate article for her, until last year, when George Ho redirected it here! Er - was there any discussion of this redirect? How do people feel about restoring the original article? Even more so than Dell'Anno, Tandoh seems notable for far more than just one runner up on a baking show, she wrote multiple books, and a baking column for a major newspaper, and now seems to be consulted as a food expert by the British Library, which is a rather reputable source. --GRuban (talk) 03:11, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not restore. Almost no one objected to merging articles about runners-up (see Talk:The Great British Bake Off/Archive 2#Individual articles about Bake Off winners). I'm not confident about the Tandoh article itself having substantial information to guarantee a longstanding, stable stand-alone article. Even multiple books, baking column, and food consultation aren't enough for me, even when the notability is marginal. I stand by the redirecting, and I'd rather improve the list section about Tandoh than restore the article, which I have thought as... irksome. George Ho (talk) 03:30, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Aha, thank you. I see there was some discussion then, User:Hzh brought Tandoh up specifically. That's something. I still think this list is too long as it is, and would support restoring the Tandoh article, but don't have a particular Jones to restore it personally if no one else is interested. I've other fish to fry, so to speak. Maybe later. --GRuban (talk) 04:11, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As I figured, the list is getting longer, so to speak. That shouldn't be the main reason to restore the biographical article. I have thought about splitting the list up into two pages by BBC and Channel 4 series. I'll be bold by splitting it without further discussion unless you object. --George Ho (talk) 04:20, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No objection to splitting. I would be in favor of restoring the article in the interest of having a nice article about Ruby Tandoh, who seems worthy of it, but that doesn't affect the list. --GRuban (talk) 04:45, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Tandoh long ago went on to independent notability in multiple contexts. If she hadn't started as a GBBO finalist, a notability discussion wouldn't even have been had. The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:57, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@The Drover's Wife: Still, her works and field have been (mostly?) baking-related... and baking. Also, I've not yet seen substantial information/coverage that would've guaranteed restoration of the article. George Ho (talk) 09:57, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
She is not less notable because many (not all) of the things she has done are in the same field as the subject of a TV show she was on many years ago. That is logically absurd. No one suggests that any other chef, cookbook writer, or food writer needs to attain notability in a completely separate arena first. I'm not sure Jamie Oliver would pass that implied test. The Drover's Wife (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 03:55, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
She's not Jamie Oliver. Maybe she did contribute to other non-baking fields, but I think her impact on those fields are probably very minimal at best. I'm still unconvinced that such information would be substantial enough to restore the article. --George Ho (talk) 05:22, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The requirement that she "contribute to other fields" other than the field which she's actually notable in has absolutely no basis in policy or guideline whatever. It's WP:IDONTLIKEIT using a few more words. She soars past WP:GNG on the basis of the actual sources. The Drover's Wife (talk) 06:48, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For the RfC

Shall the page "Ruby Tandoh", now redirected to List of The Great British Bake Off finalists (series 1–7)#Ruby Tandoh, be restored back into an article once again? George Ho (talk) 00:26, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you, George, that's very kind of you. I think yes; she has enough Wikipedia:Notability for a standalone article; she may have first made it onto the public stage as a contestant baker, but since then has more from writing three books, and a column, and Forbes 30 under 30[7] - hm, it says she's written for even more big name periodicals. She should still have an entry in the list, but that entry can be shortened when the standalone is restored/recreated. That said, if I have to be the one to do it, it will take a while. --GRuban (talk) 02:22, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now. What I see in the sources at the old article looks to be mostly a mixture of primary (and often self-authored) material, and Great British Bake Off coverage. Someone needs to make a clear WP:Notability case for this subject.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:28, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now (even as an initiator) - See my comments above. --George Ho (talk) 03:46, 31 October 2022 (UTC) (Rescinding my opposition. George Ho (talk) 22:22, 25 November 2022 (UTC))[reply]
  • Support. She's written several books (not all of them cookbooks), published with major publishers. She's been regularly published in various media with very little to do with GBBO: she had a Guardian column for a time, and all these years later she's still being published very regularly: even the most half-arsed search of the first half-page of Google brings up two articles by her in the New Yorker and one by her in the Financial Times in the last three months alone, nine years after her reality show appearance, not including coverage of her most recent book being released at the moment. A further ten-second shows search brings up articles about her engaging in public debates on veganism, dieting and Piers Morgan. The determined presumption of non-notability for people who, god forbid, were ever on a reality show, even when they're still active public writers and commentators nine years later, is illogical. The Drover's Wife (talk) 03:55, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hide a lot of discussion between The Drover's Wife and George Ho. If someone prefers we can move it into a different section instead.
  • Whatever you said are also reasons to improve and update the section about her, which I have recently done. articles about her engaging in public debates on veganism, dieting and Piers Morgan I don't know about those. For the list's section about her, I want the information about her to be as concise and general as possible, especially without missing other info, but not too detailed. Furthermore, per WP:GNG and its "Independent of the subject" criterion, her columns, cookbooks, and other works don't count as part of her compliance with GNG. Even if she were notable per WP:GNG and WP:V#Notability, this comes down to whether the stand-alone article meets WP:NEXIST, WP:PAGEDECIDE, and WP:WHYN. George Ho (talk) 05:22, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, it's not any reason to fiddle with an article focused on her in the context of a reality show she was in nine years ago when she's long gone into a significant career otherwise. Her achievements don't occur in a void: her Guardian column was the subject of independent coverage in other newspapers, her cookbooks and her other non-fiction books have received widespread media coverage (it's not like it's the slightest bit hard to find - she's doing the media rounds for her latest book at the moment!), and her journalistic career has made her views a matter of continuing regular media attention nine years after this show. You can't actually make a source-based argument for this: your argument is, literally, "she was in a reality show once, so I don't think she should have an article, and nine years of widespread, detailed, regular coverage in national and international media doesn't count because WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The Drover's Wife (talk) 06:45, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      @The Drover's Wife: I don't know why you boldly restored the article amid the discussion besides claiming that the merger had no consensus. I assumed that, for one year, almost no one objected per WP:EDITCON. I don't know whether to treat this discussion as a restoration proposal or a merger one. If the former, then... why restoring it so boldly? If the latter, then we have to start over the discussion, but I don't wanna do that yet. If both... then... Ugh!! George Ho (talk) 07:32, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Furthermore, your assumption that "I don't like it" is how you summarize my arguments. I want to dispute how you summarize it, but.... I don't know. I'm still unsure why you think nine years of widespread, detailed, regular coverage in national and international media doesn't count is what I implied about her notability, but... whatever. This isn't about fully her notability but rather whether the article about her should be restored. You provided arguments about her notability, so that's something. However, I'm still unconvinced that being (independently) notable is a sufficient reason to restore the article. Furthermore, I've not yet found any other newer info that would've improved the article besides the upcoming book you mentioned and her columns, all of which I added in the list section. George Ho (talk) 11:03, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm still unconvinced that being (independently) notable is a sufficient reason to restore the article. Wow. That's basically the first sentence of Wikipedia:Notability: "On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article." I mean, it then goes on to say that there can be exceptions, but as a rule, yeah, that's the main test right there. Once you admit the topic has independent notability, then the onus switches to you to show why we shouldn't have an independent article about it. Sure there can be exceptions, when a topc meeting WP:N doesn't get its own article, but I can't see why this would be one of them. --GRuban (talk) 13:59, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        Per WP:PAGEDECIDE (part of WP:N): Sometimes, understanding is best achieved by presenting the material on a dedicated standalone page, but it is not required that we do so. There are other times when it is better to cover notable topics, that clearly should be included in Wikipedia, as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context. A decision to cover a notable topic only as part of a broader page does not in any way disparage the importance of the topic.
        In other words, covering Tandoh only as part of the list rather than for the stand-alone article doesn't demean her importance in any way. Indeed, that's the best I can do about Tandoh as part of the list. In this case, the rest of WP:PAGEDECIDE says that it's up to us consensus (i.e. "editorial judgment") to decide whether to restore the article and up to WP:core content policies, WP:GUIDES... and other rules that may apply. Well, to this point, I won't change my stance, and I won't challenge your stance further. George Ho (talk) 16:40, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • You're now basically conceding that she's notable and yet you've presented no argument whatsoever for why a notable person with a nine-year career post having been on a reality show should be merged into an list of contestants on the reality show. You just seem to be determined that everyone who's ever been on a reality show - when independently notable, whatever they accomplish in their career, should always and forever be defined by their reality show appearance. It's even arguably an WP:NPOV breach, because it's trying to portray them in a very particular light not supported by the sources because that's the opinion you personally hold. The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:36, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          Which part of WP:NPOV did I violate literally and/or spiritually? I don't see "notability" mentioned by the NPOV policy. Furthermore, being only listed her doesn't make me biased in any way, especially when merging/redirecting the Tandoh page into the list. I just don't have confidence about the article's stagnant growth, especially when the article content had existed for several years without further substantial development, despite latest news about her.
          What you said, should always and forever be defined by their reality show appearance, is not exactly true in the Tandoh case. Actually, it comes down to article size and the article's relevant context. As I felt, being listed as part of the finalists list is the best way to go mainly in terms of size and context. If the article is getting too large, then merger to a list would be impossible. Short summation would've been a good alternative for a section. Too bad I've seen "article" and "notability" being treated interchangeably. Someday, one shall grasp how to treat "article" and "notability"... separately. George Ho (talk) 10:18, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          Almost forgot: have I missed any (new) information about her that I shall add into the section? George Ho (talk) 11:43, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • Wikipedia has many, many thousands of short or stub biographical articles. We don't merge them into lists because they're short or because they need work: if they're notable enough for their own article, they have their own article. And pointing someone's article to a broader list related to having appeared on a TV show despite them having long attained independent notability necessarily, by definition, defines them as only or overwhelmingly notable for their TV show appearance, even though you're basically conceding that that's not factually the case here. That is, straightforwardly, a matter of personal opinion/point of view. There is absolutely no basis in policy for what you're trying to do here, however you rephrase "I concede she's long been independently notable but she was on a TV show once so she should always and forever be stuck in a list of contestants". The Drover's Wife (talk) 22:41, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            I neither concede nor admit she has independent notability. Even if I did, I don't use it as a reason to restore the article. I just stated that your arguments about her notability may be valid. Also, I've not yet seen her individual columns being verified by independent secondary sources as noteworthy enough for inclusion. George Ho (talk) 22:58, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            • For one obvious, easily-found example of independent coverage of her column: see The Independent. It's not even needed, though: she's been so widely published at this point, with hundreds of articles written about her in multiple different contexts in national (and international) media, that having to even have the argument is a bit ridiculous. Which is why you're not really mounting a notability argument, and falling back on the attempt to claim that she just shouldn't have an article because you object to her having one regardless, even though there's zero policy basis for it. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:09, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
              I updated the section with the article you referred. George Ho (talk) 23:22, 3 November 2022 (UTC) See further note below. George Ho (talk) 05:40, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
              • Thanks, but that's irrelevant to the issue at hand here, which is your unilateral merger attempt. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:24, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've still not yet seen you clarifying your claims that I violate the NPOV policy. Is it "due weight" section, or which else? George Ho (talk) 00:21, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind The Independent article. As I either forgot or found out, Tandoh still wrote her column for The Guardian since her announcement, so I self-reverted the usage of that article as a source, making me uncertain whether her claims of "elitism" in food culture is worth including. George Ho (talk) 05:40, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please tell me how the list's version about Tandoh is (contextually?) any different from the (former?) stand-alone article's. From what I see, the stand-alone article doesn't have any value that is different from the other. And, please, don't tell me that notability is sufficient reason that the article's version is different from the list's. I can stand corrected, nonetheless. George Ho (talk) 17:42, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is sufficient. There is no practice on Wikipedia of merging independently notable people into lists of one thing of many they've achieved, either because they're short, or because you have intensely strong feelings about defining anyone who was ever on a reality show a decade ago as, always and forever, just reality show contestants. Having an intensely strong view that an article subject be defined primarily in the context of one thing they did a decade ago, regardless of sources, is plainly just as much a slanted point of view as having either an intense dislike or an intense like for an article subject. The Independent article covered the end of her column with the Guardian; that she has freelanced for them (along with many other notable publications) since then doesn't give you grounds to ignore reliable sources on the basis of your own opinion. It is, however, fairly typical of your attitude that WP:IDONTLIKEIT trumps both sources and Wikipedia policy and practice. The Drover's Wife (talk) 06:47, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is, however, fairly typical of your attitude that WP:IDONTLIKEIT trumps both sources and Wikipedia policy and practice. Do you think you are correct and accurate about everything you say about the merger, this discussion itself, me and my views, especially toward Tandoh, about the Tandoh page itself , the list section about her, her notability, etc.? Defending your arguments about her notability is one thing, but denouncing my arguments as merely "I don't like it", reverting the page back to what the page was, and other things.... I wonder whether your actions have been too far. Resorting to accusing you in order to rebut your arguments... I don't wanna do that.
The Independent article covered the end of her column with the Guardian; that she has freelanced for them (along with many other notable publications) since then doesn't give you grounds to ignore reliable sources on the basis of your own opinion. I'm not ignoring reliable sources as you claimed. Regarding the source, The Independent article reported her social media posts and announcements about The Guardian. However, I'm uncertain about the value of her post/announcement about "toxic" food culture, even when reported by non-primary sources. Not an exact or approximate date of her official resignation has been reported. I don't think Eater does that either.
Furthermore, I couldn't find any other article besides The Independent and Eater reporting her resignation announcement. Writing a few or several more articles for The Guardian some time after the announcement makes me wonder when exactly she resigned. (Well, WP:RSP#The Independent calls the publication generally reliable, but some editors had concerns about its articles posted after March 2016.) Sure, she's a freelance writer, but I don't need to mention the term. People would understand her implicitly as a freelance writer without mention "freelance", right?
either because they're short, or because you have intensely strong feelings about defining anyone who was ever on a reality show a decade ago as, always and forever, just reality show contestants It's not about "intensely strong feelings". Pages about winners, runners-up, and other types of finalists would fall into (line of) related rules, like WP:BLP, WP:NBIO, MOS:BIO, WP:PAGEDECIDE, and... WP:consensus. (Just for the record, the proposal Wikipedia:Notability (Reality Television participants) failed.) Well, I discussed stagnancy of articles about Bake Off winners last year and assumption about winners being notable only because they were... (season winners), but that also extended to that of articles about runners-up.
You've argued over and over about her notability, but I've not yet seen you explain why you think I must restore and then improve the article about her besides notability. Looking at latest news about her, I don't see any new substantial, important updates about her... besides her resignation announcement via social media, which I find is... less clear or less consistent, thanks to her continuing to write articles for The Guardian after the announcement.
Furthermore, I'm uncertain about noteworthiness of her (personal?) views, if not attacks, on anything, like veganism and dieting, or anyone, like Paul Hollywood and Piers Morgan as reported by HuffPost UK and NME and DigitalSpy. George Ho (talk) 10:03, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is no basis whatsoever in Wikipedia policy or guideline for merging articles on admittedly notable people into lists such as this, and no amount of creative attempts at re-arguing change the fact that people don't have to make a case "besides notability" that a notable person warrants their own article. If you want to do the very unusual and try to make a case for it being an exception, you need to actually make some sort of case for it. Equally, no one's demanding that you personally improve the article (plenty of worse articles on Wikipedia than that) - just that you stop trying to unilaterally merge it. The Drover's Wife (talk) 10:35, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're viewing my arguments as not policy-based or lacking case of an exception? And you're viewing my merge as "unilateral"? And, as said before, you accused me of somehow violating WP:NPOV without specifying which part of the policy. Well, whatever. I can't plead contest to your arguments any further if you're still insisting that my arguments be policy-based or exceptions-based and still intending to denounce my views about the article and my merger as "unilateral".
Well, I re-read WP:PAGEDECIDE just now and figured this out: Editorial judgment goes into each decision about whether or not to create a separate page, but the decision should always be based upon specific considerations about how to make the topic understandable, and not merely upon personal likes or dislikes.
I'm not merging just because of my "liking" or "disliking" Tandoh. I really think the list section about her helps readers understand her sufficiently. Readers would expect more from the stand-alone article about her. Instead, I think the article about her would fall short of their expectations as of date. Sure, she has a writing career, but... as you said, she's a freelance writer or something like that.
What else to tell about her? Her noteworthy views? When she started and ended officially working for one publication or another? Readers would learn from the list section or stand-alone article about her runner-up status from Bake Off and her writing resume... and her sexuality and marital status... and her family background... and her cookbooks list... And what else are we missing? Also, most or some of the sources used in the stand-alone article are interviews and articles written by her. If you're still insisting that redirecting Tandoh to the list demeans her notability, then I think you're sadly mistaken. But... whatever.
If you want exception to the Notability guideline, I must say... "common sense"? "Common knowledge"? I just know that the content meshes well with the list. If that's not an "exception", then I don't know which else is an "exception". George Ho (talk) 13:12, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you want further policy-based arguments, here it is: I'm just worried about giving undue weight to the stand-alone article, especially just by detailing Tandoh's personal views, most of them "newsworthy"... but neither "noteworthy" nor valuable (historically?). Furthermore, WP:STRUCTURE comes into play as well, and the "Notability" guideline is not above policies that apply, like (what you mentioned) WP:NPOV and other core content policies... and WP:NOT. Weighing more on "Notability" (guideline) than ones labelled as "policy" is IMO... risky... and would affect one's judgment... like yours, I'm afraid. Do you think so? George Ho (talk) 20:36, 8 November 2022 (UTC); edited, 20:37, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lady and Gentleman, I'm afraid neither of you will convince the other here. How about an alternate path? While the Ruby Tandoh article is edit protected, may I invite one or both of you to help expand User:GRuban/Ruby Tandoh? I put quite a few (maybe a hundred?) articles to be used for sourcing in User:GRuban/Ruby Tandoh#Sources, and will go through them one at a time for information to expand the article. Perhaps only User:The Drover's Wife will actively help, but I'm guessing User:George Ho won't actually get in the way. I'm also guessing that when we do expand it as much as I believe those sources allow, he will be only too glad to accept that there is enough there for a standalone article. This is because people named George, are, a priori, intelligent, reasonable, polite, and good looking. --GRuban (talk) 23:30, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support with edits. There are several sources that talk about her life after The Great British Bake Off but to restore this article updates need to be made to include this information. Pistongrinder (talk) 16:54, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • To the closer: If there's "no consensus", shall the Tandoh page either revert back to its previous/older status quo (i.e. the former article) or its current/newer status quo (i.e. the redirect)? Also, shall User:GRuban/Ruby Tandoh be weighed in on this discussion as well as this page and that page? George Ho (talk) 22:16, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Eh. Relying on the closer is a last resort, but I'm hoping I can get to real consensus, or even unaninimity, in other words to get User:GRuban/Ruby Tandoh to a point where (as I turn the list of Sources into article content) it will be blatantly obvious to any reasonable person (especially one named George!) that it'll be a fine standalone article. I'm not there yet, but I've made a start at it, and hopefully will get there over the next few days or weeks. I'm not fast, I admit it - but I hear there is no deadline! --GRuban (talk) 23:01, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, clearly notable independent of her involvement in GBBO, separate article was justified prior to merger and remains so with additions in current draft (though blow by blow of twitter stuff is maybe a bit much IMO). Crowsus (talk) 04:02, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore. Got here from Tandoh somehow, as I started working there when I saw the full dob without a good-enough source, but GRuban's got a lot more and I'd love to see the two combined. (And would be willing to help, GRuban, just ping me.)
I find the notion that anyone who is only notable in one field might not be notable to be hilarious, and not in a good way. For heaven's sake. There are literally millions of bios for people only notable in one field because duh. People who are notable in one field tend to keep working in that field. It's...I can't figure out why anyone would think this could possibly be an issue. Mostly baking-related? WTaF? Like, baking isn't important enough that if you're a notable baker, you aren't Wikipedia-notable? I'm sorry, George, but this feels a bit...well, like systemic bias. Subjects that are traditionally of interest to women do tend to be assumed to be less worth including than those traditionally of interest to men. Valereee (talk) 20:06, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Baking can interest anybody. It's the context I'm worried about as well as which information about the person is noteworthy for inclusion. Furthermore, notabilities of reality TV contestants, including Bake Off ones, have been my worries. Nonetheless, seems that the majority here favors restoring the article, so I don't feel like contesting their stances further. George Ho (talk) 20:26, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, baking can interest anyone. But over the course of many centuries it has primarily been a women's occupation. Even today most pastry chefs are women. Valereee (talk) 20:28, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now indecisive – Now after constant reverts back-and-forth and further edits and majority votes favoring restoration, I now feel defeated and succumb or lean toward agreeing with the majority. I just... I don't know. I don't feel like opposing anymore and now give up trying to find a valid reason to oppose. George Ho (talk) 22:22, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

reversion

I'm sorry, @George Ho, I don't understand what you're saying? Valereee (talk) 18:58, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to say that "Kim-Joy" is commonly-used name more than "Kim-Joy Hewlett", so I cut and pasted the "Kim-Joy Hewlett" content into "Kim-Joy" page. George Ho (talk) 19:04, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For further proof, "Kim-Joy" (Digital Spy, Food & Wine, People, Vulture). I can find a latest Yahoo UK article using the full name. --George Ho (talk) 19:09, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Meh...it's fine. She clearly is referred to in various sources by both, but as long as we have a redirect and the full name is in the lead, I don't care enough to argue. Valereee (talk) 19:59, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Still finalists or only winners?

Shall the list's scope remain winners and runners-up or be narrowed to only winners? George Ho (talk) 05:55, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One editor complained about the list supposedly conflicting with policies and guidelines, but I think that's an argument for cleaning up or narrowing down the list, not deleting it. George Ho (talk) 05:55, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If the list is to be changed to only winners, then the article title needs to be changed as well. "Finalists" is not just the winners. Where is the complaint? Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:09, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Right here, here and here by the same editor. George Ho (talk) 08:20, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Righto - cheers. I only (briefly) checked the article history itself. WP:TLDR, but I support the current status and aim of the article - both winners and finalists. Baking and associated TV shows is not my area of expertise and specific interest, so my first port of call is sources and references. Entries for the finalists seem to be consistently sourced, which to me equates to general notability within the press, and as such there's no reason not to include.
Also, to reiterate my point - the article is titled "finalists" - you can't call it "finalists" if only winners are included. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, and I concur that the list's scope shall remain including winners and runners-up. Just wondering: why do you think would that editor assume that the list has issues with policies and guidelines? George Ho (talk) 09:29, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
From their interpretation of notability, I guess. They seem to think it a case of famous for being famous. I kind of see their point - I'd certainly not want to see first-round leavers in an article, but by dint of being a finalist I think notability - and therefore coverage in reliable media - seems to have been achieved. Chaheel Riens (talk) 09:39, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_The_Great_British_Bake_Off_finalists_(series_1–7)"