Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bruce Lefebvre
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Phaedriel - 23:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Bruce Lefebvre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Was proposed for speedy deletion, the deletion was contested, with the statement that it is notable and referenced. There are citations on the article, i leave it up to you guys to figure out if it is notable or not. I'm neutral. —— Eagle101Need help? 08:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Undoubtedly a good chef, but so are thousands of others. References are to restaurant reviews rather than him. Emeraude 11:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I can't see the notability. He's not won any awards, written any books or been cited as influential in any way. Compare, for example, with Gordon Ramsay. andy 11:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "Criteria for notability of people: A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards: The person has been the subject of published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." You don't have to be a celebrity chef to be included, just one where you fit above. A restaurant review with biographical information, in the New York Times or Michelin, make a person inherently notable.
- Comment on comment No, a restaurant review in the NYT may make the restaurant notable. Emeraude
- That would be true if no information was given about the chef. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 19:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment x 3. Some discretion in selecting sources is required. On this basis all individuals named in newspapers would be notable - e.g. an old lady whose cat gets stuck up a tree and has to be rescued by the fire service. Secondary references may impute notability but they don't confer it. Pretty much every newspaper in the world recommends or disrecommends a couple of restaurants per week. That doesn't make the chefs worthy of a WP article. andy 20:57, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "an old lady whose cat gets stuck up a tree and has to be rescued by the fire service" would be Wikipedia material if it was covered by "multiple independent sources" for whatever reason. Wikipedians don't bestow subjective notability, the media does in their coverage. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 03:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment x 3. Some discretion in selecting sources is required. On this basis all individuals named in newspapers would be notable - e.g. an old lady whose cat gets stuck up a tree and has to be rescued by the fire service. Secondary references may impute notability but they don't confer it. Pretty much every newspaper in the world recommends or disrecommends a couple of restaurants per week. That doesn't make the chefs worthy of a WP article. andy 20:57, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. If I were more energetic, I would add Frog and the Peach; Wikipedia is not a restaurant guide - decent the last time I ate there, but that was before Lefebvre. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:57, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Does not meet WP:BIO. (Conflict of interest: I tidied up Frog and the Peach by removing a lot of stuff about the chef and (sorry) suggested that he should have his own page if he's notable enough... which he's not.) Mmoneypenny 21:19, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Yes your local paper does review restaurants, but only if your restaurant gets recognition in a national paper would it be significant. "Wikipedia is not a restaurant guide" true, but the article isn't a restaurant guide, it makes no recommendations of what to eat, its a biography, properly sourced from multiple independent sources.
- Keep I went through all of the available sources, which seem to focus on Mr. Lefebvre almost exclusively and mention the restaurant as an aside, in most cases. The sources provided, which cover a broad range of national and specialty publications, are primarily about Lefebvre, and are all from independent reliable and verifiable sources. I'm not sure what everyone else is reading, but this article clearly passes WP:BIO and establishes notability. Alansohn 03:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment; I'm surprised by the comment above that neither the chef nor the restaurant is notable; both articles are well sourced, and certainly there's plenty of reference here to support the notability of one of them (after all, most restaurant reviews do not go into detail about the chef, so there is something distinctive about these). I actually don't think, pace Mmoneypenny, that we need two separate articles. I generally merge minor albums into bands and minor theatre troupes into directors; on that logic, I would say keep this and merge the restaurant into it. Chick Bowen 23:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If there is to be a merge just let me return it to the way it was before the article was broken out of the restaurant. I originally had them combined until the information on him was deleted.
- Keep - The sources provided are not simply drive-by mentions of the subject. The Conde-Nast article is specifically about him. And for the better restaurants, the chef matters, and the New York times review devotes a good portion of the article to Mr. LeFebvre. It seems to be properly sourced, and establishes notability. -- Whpq 18:21, 31 May 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.