Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Benjamin Sargent

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. I see a consensus to Delete this article but I'm happy to restore it to Draft space if an editor wants to improve the sourcing of the article and submit it to WP:AFC. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:50, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Sargent[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails every aspect of the notability standard; WP:GNG. Created by a WP:SPA with a possible WP:COI. Hardly if any widespread coverage at all in WP:RS. GuardianH (talk) 20:48, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Massachusetts. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:50, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete - I didn't find any substantial reliable refs.~~ :--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:42, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails the GNG, obvious WP:PROMO. Ravenswing 04:43, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: seems to entirely lack notability, and the article only has one source. --Dynamo128 (talk) 09:40, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom --Devoke water 15:29, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because the subject passes Wikipedia:Notability. This should be entirely reworked; it is promotional, lacks references, and was created by a SPA with possible COI. However, there are more sources (two listed below), and as the subject passes the GNG, this should be edited, not deleted, as we shouldn't delete articles on notable topics simply for being poorly written. Here's a source assessment table shows that multiple qualifying sources are present, establishing notability:

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table: prepared by User:IAmHuitzilopochtli
New York Magazine (https://nymag.com/guides/summer/2010/66749/)	Story is written by a journalist at New York Magazine based on several interviews and original reporting.	New York Magazine follows established journalistic standards.	The entire magazine article is devoted to Benjamin Sargent and his work as a chef.	✔ Yes
Thrillist (https://www.thrillist.com/eat/new-york/ben-sargent-dr-klaw-lobster-rolls-new-york-city)	The reporter is not affiliated with Sargent and the article is based on original reporting.	Thrillist is a subsidiary of Vox and is highly credible per this: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/thrillist-bias-credibility/	Again, an entire article is dedicate to him.	✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

IAmHuitzilopochtli (talk) 16:16, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relist to consider source analysis. Although how a day old account knows how to compose a source analysis table stirs my curiousity.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:34, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The two articles in the source assessment table are heavily dependent on the subject, relying on interview quotes and attributed statements, thus mostly not secondary/independent. Subject may meet GNG I have not investigated in-depth, but those 2 sources are more like
YYY sources, not YYY. —siro χ o 11:13, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. Scratches notability but since BLP I think we should push this forward as WP:TOOSOON. gidonb (talk) 21:06, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't follow. If he "scratches notability", meaning satisfying WP:N, then why would we delete? WP:BLP's WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE section does not apply here, as by participating in media interviews and tv shows, this guy has demonstrated that, by the WP:LPI guideline, he has voluntarily made himself a high profile individual, regardless or not of whether we see him as "famous" or an A-list celebrity. IAmHuitzilopochtli (talk) 19:54, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fair question. Scratches notability from below. gidonb (talk) 05:08, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the source analysis above and my own reading of the 2 stories. To Siroxo's point, my own take was that these stories were independent and relied only partially on interviews. They're long. They work for me. That said, I encourage others to see for themselves; they may see it Siroxo's way.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 21:17, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I mean gotta love a guy who became notable for being an unlicensed lobster roll dealer. Sadly, I think he is basically WP:BLP1E, basically a minor chef with some appearances on Food TV. The derby was the brainchild of Benjamin Sargent, the proprietor of an unlicensed lobster-roll outfit that ran afoul of the city’s health authorities last year. (For fourteen dollars, Sargent, who is known as Dr. Claw or the Chowder Surfer, would dress as a drug pusher and deliver a homemade lobster roll to your door.) His latest venture is a Cooking Channel program called “Hook, Line, and Dinner,” whose première was the occasion for the party, held on the terrace of a Chinese bistro in Williamsburg.[1] Andre🚐 19:03, 10 August 2023 (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.