Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/April Masini (2nd nomination)

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 userfy. This is the absolute last AFD that expired last week to be closed. Why? Because there is a lot of off topic/irrelevant discussion here, and a lot of repeated arguments on essentially the same issues and nobody wanted to plow through it all to find the actual relevant parts and evaluate them. Going by strength of argument, with of course arguments with a solid basis in WP policy being given more weight, consensus seems to favor the position that this person is not sufficiently notable for a stand alone article, However a significant minority made decent arguments to keep, and one user has repeatedly asked for it to be userfied, so that's what we're going to do with it for the time being. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:14, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

April Masini

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/April Masini
• Articles for deletion/April Masini (2nd nomination)

April Masini (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Allow me to give some of the history of this page before I put my reasons for deletion. I'm outlining the page's history just so that all this information is presented up-front in a clear and concise form, not to try to persuade people to !vote one way or the other.

History:

• October 22, 2011 - April Masini article was nominated for deletion
• October 31, 2011 - After discussion, page was deleted link
• January 17, 2012 - User:Gmhayes4 Posts the article on Requests for Undeletion, the request was denied link
• January 20, 2012 - The page is recreated anyway link
• March 16, 2012 - The page is brought to the attention of the COI Noticeboard link
• March 18, 2012 - The page is nominated for speedy deletion and re-deleted
• March 19, 2012 - The page was brought to Deletion review and restored because G4 didn't apply link

So yet again we get the honor of reviewing this page here at AfD.

Reason for AfD nomination:

The source cited at deletion review link is from a weekly, local, business newsletter link. To me, that alone does not meet the notability criteria for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Issues for other sources in this article are addressed in the first AfD. Much of the content on Mansini is actually focused on her ex husband, and notability is not inherited.

User:Gmhayes4 is virtually the only author for this article, may or may not have a COI as shown above (although I admit the COI case is a bit weak, still it hasn't been addressed), and this user certainly has a single purpose account (take a look). I admit the article is in much better shape than it's first form, but just because an article is well written doesn't mean that the subject is notable.

Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. May fall under WP:SPIP since neutral sources are needed to guarantee a neutral article can be written, and self-published sources cannot be assumed neutral depending on Gmhayes' relation to the subject. MisterRichValentine ^(talk) 19:49, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Can you please refactor the nomination so it stays on topic? The article's history and any alleged COI are irrelevant for our purposes here. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:56, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
  • You think? I figured it would all just spill out over the course of debate anyway, so I just thought it would make it easier to navigate in a concise form in the nom.MisterRichValentine ^(talk) 20:01, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
  • And previous deletions/deletion discussion certainly are relevant, that's why they show up in that little box in the upper right. COI may not always be relevant but in this case I think it is. MisterRichValentine ^(talk) 20:04, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Articles at AfD should be judged on the quality of their sources/on their notability. Any COI, real or imagined, is irrelevant - we are looking at the quality of the sources, not the motivation of the author. If a single purpose account with a giant conflict of interest creates an article about a notable subject, that's perfectly okay and we should keep it. (Also, WP:SPIP, one of the policies you cited, has only to do with the quality of the sources and not on the motivations of the author. Whether or not this article falls under WP:SPIP does not depend on Gmhayes' relation to the subject.) I haven't looked over the sources enough to form an opinion on the merits of the actual AfD, I've watchlisted this and will do so later tonight. But I agree with AQOK that you would be better off refactoring the nomination. Kevin (kgorman-ucb) (talk) 21:49, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Sorry, but I feel like I'm being attacked. I haven't done anything wrong, and am an active member in this community. I understand that no one can own an article in Wikipedia, and I have no interest to gain financially from employing my curiosity about a living person. I had no idea this would turn into an edit war. I'm not sure what to do now that the article is up for deletion a second time. I've reached out to editors in Teahouse; I've even had email conversations with editors outside of Wikipedia so my article was not written alone. I wanted to build an article for Womens History Month, and I found April Masini as a page that need sources. I went after the challenge. Now, I feel bullied. What's going on?GMHayes (talk) 21:47, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Instead of deleting the article I've created, and attacking me, I'm accepting of help and input. If you visit my talk page, there is another editor that is just as adamant about deleting the April Masini article, so much in fact that the editor has researched her alleged home address, and I do not understand why. All of my references are valid, and the page is non-promotional... it's just an article. GMHayes (talk) 21:58, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete I would concur that the subject of the article does not meet notability nor are the sources substantive enough. The article should be deleted - it is simply not of a subject worthy of an encyclopedia article. Here are my earlier thoughts on the matter shared elsewhere:

The question here is A) notability and B) the article contributors. A promotional piece may be written in a way to simply share information about a less than notable subject. I could construct a very well written, factual, and in fact objective article about a teenage babysitter who happens to play the saxophone, won the role of an oak tree in a school play, came in third in a relay race, and shares her feelings on her Facebook page. The quality of the writing, nor the resume of an individual independently nor in sum inherently meet the notability test. Further, there is one primary author here - even to the point she petitioned to keep the page because of the work she put into it. Wikipedia is not intended to be a place to showcase writing ability: it's about the good of the commons and creating something for public benefit. Creating paid pieces to raise awareness of celebrity wannabees does not meet that test.

Further, I would question one of the most important sources used for no less than eleven (11) references. The source from a Southwest Florida publication (http://www.review.net/section/detail/30831/) is a puff piece article that reads like a reworded press release (which is very common for this and other local publications as a way to fill copy). This makes a large portion of the wikipedia article out to be a re-wording of a re-wording of a press release. Bromeliad39 (talk) 22:03, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

• This seems to be an editing war, so I am going to make a proposal: If it is determined that the page needs more work, can I please have it "Userfied" so that whatever information needs to be cited actually can be? The language that is being used to delete this article seems more aggressive than is necessary, and I have tried to resolve this with Bromeliad39 directly but have received no response other than the same message posted above: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gmhayes4 GMHayes (talk) 22:15, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
  • There is no editing war here - but you do seem to be taking this very personally which is all the more reason this ought to be left to the community. I did not propose the article for deletion; I leave that up to other contributors and the consensus of the commons. I'm merely stating the case that the subject is not noteworthy, the article is based largely on a published PR piece, and there is essentially one contributing author. The article appears to exist to promote the subject - albeit in a "by the book" sort of way to make the article appear objective. However, the subject simply isn't a notable person. I am of the opinion that if given an objective review the deletion would stick. Bromeliad39 (talk) 23:07, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete per Bromeliad39 and per lack of evidence that anything is significantly different from the last debate. Gmhayes4--you might have a COI and you might not, though it sure looks like it, that kind of thing is very difficult to actually prove, and significantly it isn't the deciding factor here. However, you need to understand that your bizarre obsession with this person, your tendency to take things that happen to the article personally, and your generally poor performance here clearly indicates that you are unable to write about this topic with the neutrality required of all editors of wikipedia. Whether or not the article is deleted again you seriously need to step away from it and perhaps work on some other things that won't make you so upset. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:14, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not upset. I don't "own" the page but when I ask for help directly to make improvements, I don't get any help so I'm not sure what to do. I'm just trying to understand. Thanks. GMHayes (talk) 23:24, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
  • There may not be any improvements to make. The issues with this article are too fundamental for another comma or some fancy formatting to magically fix. Every article should be notable, verifiable, and strongly referenced by reliable, independent secondary sources, but all of the above is especially important on an article about a living person because of liability and the chance of real-life consequences when such an article is poor (see WP:BLP for more). IF you have a COI in this article, then that's bad because you claim otherwise, and if you don't then in a sense that's even worse because you've brought shame and ridicule onto a living person who certainly doesn't deserve it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:01, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Thanks! That helps. I didn't intend to bring "shame and ridicule" to April Masini or to cause any offense. I don't have any COI; I just really wanted this article to be apart of Wikipedia. I will definitely take everything noted here and use it for my future articles and edits. And, I will take your advice Starblind! to step back and let the experienced Admin look this over. I thought that the article was sufficient, and that the references were detailed that this living person is notable and verifiable. I guess there's just more to learn, and I'm cool with that! I appreciate all the input! Thank you. GMHayes (talk) 01:11, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment GMHayes is being accussed of having a COI. Of course, they're going to take it personally. In what crazy world, can you making personal accusations against someone without them taking it personally? Nevermind the fact that this has absolutely nothing to do with this topic's notability. Hopefully, the closing admin has a clue and won't take these COI accusations into account in making their determination. If they do, I'll personally see to it that we're back at deletion review. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:32, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: FYI: corporationwiki.com/Florida/Naples/april-masini/42873974.aspx could be where GMHayes4 got her information. Unless she searched public records (which is against the rules) or had another source of information, based upon this page there would be no reason to believe Masini lived anywhere other than Naples, Florida. The page sources: California Secretary of State, last refreshed 2/2/2012, and Florida Department of State, last refreshed 2/2/2012. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jennyspencer (talk • contribs) 04:31, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

April Masini is also listed as President and Director of a Neighborhood Association for a community that is located in Naples, Florida. It appears, however, that the neighborhood management office is located in Bonita Springs. Source: Florida Department of State, last refreshed 2/2/2012. corporationwiki.com/Florida/Bonita-Springs/villalago-at-mediterra-neighborhood-association-inc-5747119.aspx — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jennyspencer (talk • contribs) 04:47, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

The gated community where Masini owns property straddles the boundary of Lee County and Collier County. The Lee County portion is in the incorporated city of Bonita Springs, Florida while the Collier County portion is not incorporated in any municipality and is therefore not in Naples. Real Estate agents sometimes refer to homes in Southwest Florida as "Naples" as a marketing ploy to sell homes. Masini's property in the Villalago "neighborhood" is in fact in Lee County (and Bonita Springs). Bromeliad39 (talk) 14:09, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

• 'Comment': There are about 143,000 Google hits for “April Masini” in quotation marks. Nevertheless, if anything about this article brings “shame and ridicule” on its subject (I don't see how it does?) then in the absence of clear notability, we should delete it. 68.55.112.31 (talk) 07:08, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment: Thank you for the explanation Bromeliad39. Assuming everything you've outlined is exactly as you say it is (and I am not suggesting it's not), how would you expect GMHayes to know this when the Florida Department of State doesn't even appear to know it? From what I have read in your other posts, you have attacked this woman as if she has some vested interest into making it appear April Masini lives in Naples, Florida. I don't understand why? I also noticed that you and MisterRichValentine have denigrated The Gulf Coast Business Review which appears to me to be a very well respected weekly regional business newspaper. Why?

Based upon the Pacific Business News article, Studios Trade Credit for Promos, April Masini had a prominent role in financing Blue Crush and using some newly passed state of Hawaii legislation to bring the film to Hawaii. The deal also seems to have created a very unusual marketing and promotional vehicle for Hawaii. Importantly, nowhere in that article does it mention April Masini's ex-husband. In fact, it says that she worked with Adam Fields and was represented by entertainment attorney, John LaViolette. http://www.bizjournals.com/pacific/stories/2002/03/11/story1.html?page=all

In my view, the opinions posted here are very personal and very biased and not in keeping with wikipedia's quest for objectivity to say nothing of community spirit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jennyspencer (talk • contribs) 15:03, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

It's oddly coincidental that the Jennyspencer account did not make any edits until this recent deletion discussion. My purpose here is striving for accuracy - which includes addressing incorrect statements and confronting non-notable subjects and COI. I attempt to be objective; I had never even heard of Masini until I saw the inaccurate reference to a Naples residency. Bromeliad39 (talk) 21:02, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

You are correct Bromeliade39 in as much as I have had an account since August 2010, but not posted until now. My posting history (or lack thereof) is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand and has no bearing on the validity of my statements. I am not trying to pick a fight with you and I am not questioning your motivations for being on Wikipedia. I would ask that you please afford me that same courtesy. I made observations about the way someone was being treated and, like A Quest For Knowledge, felt something needed to be said.Jennyspencer (talk) 22:26, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete Non-notable author with two self-published books--and this is a field where anything conceivably worthwhile or likely to sell is eagerly snapped up by regular publishers. That they are self-published implies to me insufficient notability as a columnist for even that subject. The article is not hopelessly promotional, in the sense that it could not be improved by rewriting. But there's nothing encyclopedic worth rewriting. I agree with the view that the sources are hopelessly contaminated with PR, & that includes getting a short spot on O'Reilly Factor. The only news report that is not pure PR is the move of Baywatch, and that is not enough for an encyclopedia article. DGG ( talk ) 17:03, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

• Keep. However, consider removing the books. I agree with DGG that the books are non-notable, but I disagree with DGG that the work as a columnist is inconsequential. Based upon publications found, Masini did not begin work as a columnist until after the release of the self-published books. Her work as a columnist appears to be widely distributed and quoted in a significant number of meaningful periodicals and publications (I used the “news” source at the top of this page for archived references and then searched again for recent news sources) and therefore should not be discounted. (WP:BASIC and WP:CREATIVE) The appointment by Old Spice to its’ Voice of Experience Panel as the Dating & Relationship Editor is also not insignificant, and supports this opinion.

I would counter that Masini is not a regularly syndicated columnist in any "top notch" publications. (I draw a line between spammy website publications and the New York Times or even Cosmopolitan). Further, it appears that jennyspencer is a paid PR person of Masini. I would suggest that her statements are clearly biased and should be dismissed. Masini's career didn't make the step up from commercials and two-bit off-off-broadway extra spots until after she married her ex-husband, Al Masini, whose name recognition it appears she wishes to retain. Bromeliad39 (talk) 11:44, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I equally agree with DGG that the Baywatch move is worthy of mention. However, the work related to Hawaii television and film legislation is also noteworthy, and the work on Blue Crush and Miss Universe is documented (albeit not well documented on the page in dispute) and worthy of note. (WP:BASIC) http://www.bizjournals.com/pacific/stories/2002/02/18/story3.html?page=all http://www.bizjournals.com/pacific/stories/2002/03/11/story1.html?page=all

I am not able to find a connection to Blue Crush... but I could be wrong here... using WP as a guide, she is not notable enough to the movie to be included on that page. I also do not see her ex-husband Al listed. Further, it appears that neither Masini had anything to do with getting Hawaii Bill 221 passed - which negates the "political activist" claim on her website and repeated in this article. The bill, which has since been gutted, was created to generate long term high tech investment in the state, not explicitly to move TV production. At best, Masini may have been a beneficiary of the law. She is as much involved and can be labelled a political activist in this regard as a homeowner that got a rebate for buying a home two years ago.

Also, I question the connection to Baywatch. Again, if her contribution were notable, wouldn't she or at least her husband be in the WP article? The source in the article, eBella, which is produced locally, is not a reliable source. Bromeliad39 (talk) 12:19, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Ironically, I found April Masini is a quoted source in two different Wikipedia articles and she, along with her books, are listed as references on these pages. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bikini_waxing#cite_note-4 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tankini

Disclosure Notice: In the spirit of good faith I want to disclose that I have met the subject, but have made every effort to be objective and neutral in researching and writing the above opinion. Jennyspencer (talk) 06:06, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I can only find proof on Masini's self-promoting website at the moment moment, but this user is a paid PR employee of Masini and has been for some time. Please see the cached version of the website here: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:sdJT3RlnsAEJ:www.askapril.com/press.html+To+schedule+an+interview+with+April+Masini+please+contact+Jenny+at+646-213-0232+or+by+email.&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a Bromeliad39 (talk) 11:44, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

With all due respect Bromeliad39, while I appreciate your effort to "out" me because you suspect me of operating with a COI on the sly, I very clearly noted a "Disclosure Notice". I did not conceal that I had met the subject when I submitted my comments, I did the opposite. I believe I have acted in a straight forward fashion and according to Wikipedia's Policy. I have included a link to the policy and it’s pertinent excerpts below.

Here is a link to a release put out by eBella Magazine’s editor, Candace Rotolo, and Jenny Freeman who works for Masini. While I have submitted to you and to those who read my comments that I know the subject -- I am not Jenny Freeman. (Wrong Jenny.) http://www.prweb.com/releases/2008/02/prweb675713.htm

It is interesting to note that according to the release April Masini was the cover story for that eBella Magazine issue and writes an ongoing column for the magazine. Both of these probably would have helped substantiate the page in dispute had they been mentioned as a source or reference, but they do not appear to have been included.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AVOIDCOI#How_to_avoid_COI_edits "Editors with COIs who wish to edit responsibly are strongly encouraged to follow Wikipedia policies and best practices scrupulously. They are also encouraged to disclose their interest on their user pages and also on the talk page of the related article they are editing, and to request others' views, particularly if those edits may be contested. Most Wikipedians will appreciate your honesty.”

“Remember: an editor with a self-evident interest in the matter turning up on the talk page is an indication that they are playing it straight. Even if the changes they advocate are hopelessly biased, treat them with respect and courtesy, refer to policy and sources, and be fair.”

“Declaring an interest Some editors declare an interest in a particular topic area. Reasons to declare an interest • You will benefit from the assumption of good faith. Most editors will appreciate your honesty and try to help you. • You lay the basis for requesting help from others to post material for you, or to review material you wish to post yourself." Jennyspencer (talk) 15:17, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

• (Mind you all that I am eager to see the page back up and Wiki-worthy but I wanted to make sure all sides of this were addressed with new information I have found. Thank you!) Not sure if any of the other editors and Admin here noticed but I have been accused of COI by Bromeliad39 for creating and editing the article. Now, I would like to ask why Bromeliad39 researched public records to find the address of April Masini, to prove the point that the subject does not live in Naples, Florida (you can review the conversation here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:April_Masini)? Listing any person's physical address on Wikipedia is not only unnecessary but dangerously irresponsible. It doesn't have anything to do with the information my article provides (other than I got the city wrong and did not search public records like an "obsessed" person would?). Why would anyone do that if they didn't have COI? Is it normal to search through public records when creating an article about someone and list their private residential information online? The reason I listed Masini as a resident of Naples was because my research yielded that result (as proven in the reflist). I would just like to point out that such a vested interest in Masini's whereabouts may suggest a COI on Bromeliad39's part. Thank you. GMHayes (talk) 15:54, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Wow Bromiliad39, your comments have such a sarcastic tone. It would be really great if we could just agree to disagree on this topic without resorting to putting people down or name calling. In response to your last comment about April Masini’s political involvement, according to this Honolulu Star Bulletin article, http://archives.starbulletin.com/2000/02/17/news/story2.html April Masini testified in House and Senate Committee Hearings related to at least one piece of television and film legislation. Aside from Act 221, there appears to have been other pieces of legislation pertaining to the Miss Universe Pageant where, according to this article, April Masini served as Event Coordinator and Co-chair. http://archives.starbulletin.com/98/04/06/news/story1.html as well as for Baywatch. http://www.bizjournals.com/pacific/stories/2001/06/04/editorial3.html?page=all

In response to your assertion that Masini lacks appearances in any "Top Notch" publications, the link you, yourself, posted above (in and of itself) contains hundreds of interviews done by Masini with "Top Notch" media outlets (USA TODAY, International Business Times, Telemundo, FOX, MSN, WebMD, NY Times, etc.) and as best I can tell there are links to those articles as well.

At this point, I would prefer to just step away and let the Admin make their evaluation. I don't think it serves any good purpose for us to continue this back and forth. You are entitled to your opinion, equally I am entitled to mine. Jennyspencer (talk) 16:45, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Bromeliad39, you cannot find any mention of her ex-husband, Al Masini, as it pertains to Blue Crush and Act 221 for the reason that I stated previously: He had no involvement in Blue Crush or Act 221. April Masini, on the other hand, did. And your assertion otherwise is incorrect. I have referenced two Pacific Business News articles already that document her involvement in response to a prior assertion. If you take the time to read them you will better understand what her role was. You will also see that April Masini incorporated a marketing agreement into her deal with Universal Studios to benefit the State of Hawaii whereby in exchange, according to the article, she supplied between $16-18 million to the Blue Crush production using Act 221. This marketing agreement and effort (by April Masini) is, in fact, touted by the Sate of Hawaii’s Governor’s Office.

Once again, here are the links to the two Pacific Business News references: http://www.bizjournals.com/pacific/stories/2002/02/18/story3.html?page=all http://www.bizjournals.com/pacific/stories/2002/03/11/story1.html?page=all

It is odd to me that you would state on one hand that “April Masini was a beneficiary of law” as a result of the work she did on Blue Crush and then (at the same time) assert that she had no part in either. Not quite sure how one can have it both ways. It is equally odd that you would assert that because there is no mention of Al Masini, that April Masini has no involvement. According to published reports, the couple divorced in 1999 and stopped working together. The page in dispute is related to April Masini, not her ex-husband. Jennyspencer (talk) 18:49, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

• Wikipedia community, I ask you all to comment. In my quest for objectivity and fighting non-notable PR pieces, I feel I am being overrun by a tag team of paid and unpaid writers.

In my opinion/observation

1) The subject is still non-notable (she did not become notable for a WP page overnight)

2) We have seen nothing new in this discussion. The two defending editors (benefit of the doubt not the same person) are rehashing the same sources from the article prior to the deletion discussion

3) The sources originally garnered either are largely PR themselves and/or printed in sources which are non-trustworthy

4) There will be an endless barrage to hollowly defend this article by professionals with more time than I have to dedicate

5) The users defending this article arguably have COI. My ONLY interest is accuracy and notability on Wikipedia Bromeliad39 (talk) 11:36, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

You do realize that primary sources can be used on Wikipedia, right? The issue here is whether there are enough secondary sources to establish that this topic is notable. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:16, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete - per that notorious deletionist DGG, until and unless some actual evidence of real notability can be found. She isn't even a D-list celebrity, merely a self-published author with columns in minor venues, and lots of unsubstantiated claims to notability that have never been backed up in any way. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:27, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

• The primary issues here are Notability and secondary sources. If those are the items I need to address specifically, am I able to have the page "Userfied"? I would like to continue working on it since these are the most pressing issues at hand. Thanks! GMHayes (talk) 20:24, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I've add a sentence about the Governor of Hawaii proclaiming June 4th, 1998 "Al and April Masini Day" citing the State of Hawaii, Office of the Governor.[1] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:23, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

• It was declared "Masini Day" not "Al and April Masini Day" as mentioned here, here, and here. If you google "Al and April Masini Day" (in quotes), it returns two results: The April Masini Wikipedia page, and a file on Wikipedia that looks like it is a scan of a printout of a webpage (strange that if that was needed somewhere as a reference they wouldn't just link to the webpage itself). Oh and look, what do you know - that file was posted today by Jennyspencer.

The reason that June 4th 1998 was declared "Masini Day" is because Al Masini was credited for bringing the Miss Universe 1998 pageant to Hawaii via his production company source1, source2 NOT April Masini. MisterRichValentine ^(talk) 02:19, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I would think that the official announcement by the Governor of Hawaii would get the name right. Perhaps people just informally shorten to "Masini Day"? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:34, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Wow, that is so untrue MisterRichValentine. April Masini worked as Event Coordinator and Co-chair overseeing all of the pre-Pageant events and hosting accommodations. Al Masini did not bring the show into Hawaii via his production company -- both served as volunteers. The articles you have sited were written about Al's passing and I don't think it's uncommon not to mention the ex-wife, especially when he's been remarried. I realize you are going to be hard to convince, but if you would please try and have an open mind I can show you lots of evidence to support what I am telling you. If you would please be patient enough to read these two magazine articles, both uploaded onto Wikipedia. The first is put out by the Office of the Governor of Hawaii the second is the Official Miss Universe Program. File:Imi Loa Magazine, Remaking Government Renewing Hawaii, April Masini, Baywatch Hawaii.pdf

File:1998 Miss Universe Hawaii Official Program.pdf

insert a caption here

File:1998_Miss_Universe_Hawaii_Official_Program.pdf Jennyspencer (talk) 03:38, 26 March 2012 (UTC) The sites you mentioned that say "Masini Day" are April Masini's sites and are reflective of an error that needs to be corrected to say "Al and April Masini Day". I am confident that was a honest mistake by a webmaster or whomever does the work on her sites. The official proclamation, issued by the Hawaii Governor's office, speaks for itself. Jennyspencer (talk) 03:55, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

So you guys think it's a mistake by every webmaster on the internet? Seriously, google "Al and April Masini Day." You get two hits, both from what the two of you have written on Wikipedia. I don't see any official proclamation issued by the Hawaii Governor's Office. I see a scanned image of a typed piece of paper uploaded by a user who, for some reason, is going to great lengths to try to keep the Wikipedia page of a person with little to no indication of notability. MisterRichValentine ^(talk) 13:40, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say that at all. I said that maybe it's shorthand, just like "United States" is short for "United States of America". If I do a Google search for "United States", I get 39,000 hits.[2] If I do a search for "United States of America", I get only 3,430 results.[3] According to that logic, the official name of the US must be "United States" because it gets more hits. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:13, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

My 'logic' has nothing to do with the ratio of the number of hits of one search term to another. It has to do with the fact that if you google "Al and April Masini Day" the only two hits that you get are written by you and Jennyspencer on Wikipedia. MisterRichValentine ^(talk) 15:37, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Have you not heard of paper? I don't believe Google searches that. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:45, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment: Since the discussion was not closed, over the past few days I have added a lot of references to the page and have included excerpts that directly support every statement that is made. A lot of the assertions made on this discussion page are completely inaccurate and not based upon the facts. Should someone be inclined to actually read the references they will see this to be the case. I hope that the newly added references will be considered when making a final determination. Jennyspencer (talk) 16:31, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Nice work. Nothing says notability like 11 references from match.com! 98.216.108.133 (talk) 16:44, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Keep - I think that by moving the page prematurely, I've caused a can of worms to spill over. All of the edits and additional references are appreciated but there must be another way to work on the page through collaboration with other editors. As for newspaper clippings and magazine references, I provided citations for my findings and, like you all have mentioned in previous comments, those items are not necessarily searchable via Google. However, they are legitimate sources that show April Masini's notability as an entertainment executive and advice columnist. My proposal remains the same: I would like to page Userfied to keep working on those citations, and to collaborate with editors that have shown an interest in build its solidarity. I still have not been told that this is not an option. Will any admin with input about the possibility of a userfied page please let me know? That would be pretty cool. Thank you! GMHayes (talk) 17:48, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

You can work on the article right now while it's in article space. There's no point creating two different copies of the same article with you working on the one in your user space, and everyone else working on the the one out there right now. If you want to improve the article, just go to April Masini and click on edit. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:53, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• 'Partial Merge with Al Masini and Delete' - It seems her works as a 'political activist' were all in conjunction with her husband Al (who IS independently notable). While these actions clearly did occur, I see no notability for April independent from Al, in terms of her role as a political activist. Also, the second half of her career seems to be as a sex advice columnist. While articles BY her have been published in notable publications, I don't see any articles ABOUT her. There's secondary sources that she did political consulting, but is not independently notable; she is potentially independently notable as a sex columnist, but there doesn't seem to be secondary sources to back it up. My conclusion? Does not meet WP:GNG and should be deleted. Frorunner9 (talk) 16:36, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Here's an article about her.[4] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:34, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
• Hi Frorunner! Her work on Blue Crush and related to Act 221 was completely independent from her ex-husband. (They divorced in 1999. Act 221 and the film were in 2002 and they no longer were working together.) By all accounts the Blue Crush deal she structured included a commitment by Universal Studios to cross promote the film and the location it had been shot. This, according to all reports, was something that had never been done before. . "A Hollywood studio and the state visitors bureau have agreed to cross-promote the islands with the upcoming release of a made-in-Hawaii movie -- a pioneering deal with a promotional value worth millions of dollars." ""April[Masini], who has worked to bring TV and movie productions to Hawaii for years, has said all along that she would help promote Hawaii," Blanco said. "She's kept to her word."" http://www.bizjournals.com/pacific/stories/2002/03/11/story1.html?page=all

That said, if you want to disregard the Blue Crush deal, you are correct that the rest of her work related to political advocacy on behalf of the TV and film industry was while she was married to her ex-husband. Thanks for your consideration. Jennyspencer (talk) 17:27, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• In light of that, I am changing my vote to Weak Keep, though major cleanup of the article is required. Frorunner9 (talk) 18:49, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
• Thank you Frorunner. I have added the story that A Quest For Knowledge posted above to the April Masini page along with two other articles written about her. Jennyspencer (talk) 19:39, 30 March 2012 (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.