Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elana Amsterdam


 * 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   keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talk about my edits? 13:52, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Elana Amsterdam

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Lacks reliable independent sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. It's unlikely but possible the subjects books may be notable but notability is not WP:INHERITED. Subject certainly doesn't meet the hurdle for presumed notability under WP:AUTHOR. Msnicki (talk) 23:22, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 27 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. I'd like to note that the links provided in the article cannot be considered to be reliable sources. The first original link (which I removed) only listed one of Amsterdam's recipes, so it's not considered to show notability. The second link is a list of cookbooks and Amsterdam is only briefly mentioned. The third link was a link to an almond website and I'm a little concerned that the article over-stated the implications of the link. It states that she was selected as an "almond expert", but the phrasing of the link was pretty vague. Not sure if that would constitute as a reliable source. A search brought up a lot of links to sale sites and blog entries, but nothing that would be considered a reliable source.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:23, 27 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79


 * Keep Amsterdam is without a doubt an authority on gluten free living. Here are several more sources for you to check out including two appearances on local news stations: http://www.celiac.com/authors/211/Elana-Amsterdam, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xkpk6F3iKqI, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XsSttzpbo14 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tylerbarnett (talk • contribs) 19:31, 27 December 2011 (UTC)  — Tylerbarnett (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * YouTube videos of the subject are not useful in establishing notability. As explained at WP:Notability, sources offered in support of notability must be reliable and from third parties.  The videos are what we call primary sources because the subject was involved in producing them. Primary sources can be use, with care, to fill in detail once notability has been established but not to establish notability, which is the only issue we consider at an AfD.  Msnicki (talk) 20:31, 27 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &oelig; &trade; 22:56, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep This from the Camera (newspaper) seems to be detailed and from a RS. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 00:11, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That's an interview, which makes it a WP:PRIMARY source and unhelpful in establishing notability. Msnicki (talk) 08:51, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It's also a newspaper article.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 10:26, 3 January 2012 (UTC) as is this from the Washington Post . Tigerboy1966 (talk) 10:29, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter where an interview is published, it's still an interview and still WP:PRIMARY. That Washington Post article is also unhelpful in establishing notability as it's not even about her; there's just one spare sentence about her.  It's possibly a review of her book but mostly it's just a reprint and discussion of one of the recipes.  You'd have a better case arguing that the article makes her olive-rosemary bread notable.  No way does this clear the hurdle for significant coverage of the subject herself.  Msnicki (talk) 17:00, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If a reliable source does an interview with you, it counts towards your notability. Had this discussion a few times before.  Whether they write about you, or decide to interview you themselves, its the same thing.   D r e a m Focus  23:05, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't know who discussed this with, but it wasn't me; I'd have told you you're wrong. From WP:INDEPENDENT, "Every article on Wikipedia must be based upon verifiable statements from multiple third-party reliable sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. A third-party source is one that is entirely independent of the subject being covered, e.g., a newspaper reporter covering a story that they are not involved in except in their capacity as a reporter."  Also, from WP:SPIP, "The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it – without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter."  Msnicki (talk) 05:58, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Now I'm confused. Surely one way in which a newspaper shows that they consider a person notable is to conduct an interview with them. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 10:58, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

*Delete The subject does not seem to have sufficient notability. I agree that the interview is a primary source, and would make a good back-up reference for the article, but is not enough to establish notability. The WaPo article is, indeed, better at establishing notability of the cookbook or the recipe than the author, as the article's coverage of the author is trivial at best. Finally, the editor who started the article (and to date is the main contributor) is the owner of a Public Relations company, who has the article subject as a client (see, articles listed under "Sheknows"), so I am (perhaps unfairly) putting this under an even higher-power WP:N microscope than usual. The end result is that it doesn't measure up. Liv it ⇑ Eh?/What? 03:01, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - The 2 Vail Daily and Camera articles found by Northamerica1000 are enough to change my mind. These are the first articles I've seen that really feature the subject of this article instead of one of her books or recipes.  I still have a bad feeling about this, due to COI concerns, but I have to agree that policy supports the assertion she is notable.   Liv it ⇑ Eh?/What? 02:27, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - Per significant coverage in reliable sources.
 * A book review reference already in the article:
 * References I added to the article:
 * Quote (from Google search summary): "In her Gluten-Free Almond Flour Cookbook (Clarkson Potter, 2009) the ingenious celiac Elana Amsterdam offers another possible approach, a sandwich bread..."
 * Quote (from Google search summary): "'The Gluten-Free Almond Flour Cookbook' by Elana Amsterdam...Elana Amsterdam of Boulder, Colo., offers dozens of wheatless recipes..."
 * — Northamerica1000  (talk) 09:20, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * — Northamerica1000  (talk) 09:20, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * — Northamerica1000  (talk) 09:20, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * — Northamerica1000  (talk) 09:20, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * — Northamerica1000  (talk) 09:20, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Because of the significant coverage of her The Gluten-Free Almond Flour Cookbook (see links provided by ), Amsterdam meets WP:AUTHOR (4c). Goodvac (talk) 19:54, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable person, covered in reliable sources found.  D r e a m Focus  23:05, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable author, covered in reliable sources added, and important to those who need a gluten-free diet. --DThomsen8 (talk) 00:48, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep clearly passes WP:BIO but this article is a mess. The references section is for listing where the information used to create the article came from, it's not a bullet list on what make the subject notable or a place to save it from deletion.  This article's scant 2 sentences are "referenced" with 6 sources. RadioFan (talk) 14:05, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Coverage is sufficient, per our notability standards.--Epeefleche (talk) 12:19, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment. Okay, apparently the consensus is going heavily toward keep, but I'm appalled and I have to say something. These are truly meager mentions being accepted as significant coverage in reliable sources.  The subject has written a couple cookbooks and she apparently has a publicist, so of course she's gotten a few mentions.  But if the bar is merely a few mentions of her cookbook, then we'd need an article on pretty nearly anyone who ever wrote any book that got reviewed anywhere.  It's supposed to take more than that. The only thing the Denver Post has to say about the subject is that "Local hero Elana Amseterdam (straight out of Boulder) offers dozens of wheatless recipes."  No one here has ever actually seen the Philadelphia Inquirer article so we have to depend on Google's snippet to tell us that she's an "ingenious celiac" (that's someone who can't digest gluten) who's done something (we don't know what) with sandwich bread.  No one has seen the Pioneer Press article either, so all we have to go on there is that it also mentions that she's from Boulder and her book has lots of recipes (hardly surprising given it's a cookbook).  The Daily Camera article says she's a "Boulder cookbook author" and that "Her neighbor and her neighbor's children [tasted] the recipes"; the rest of the article isn't about her, it's about her recipes. Of the bunch, the Vail Daily articles are probably the best, but one is an interview, which makes it primary and unusable for establishing notability.  The other reports that she and her 3-yo son are both celiac; the rest of the article is about her book and about almond flour.  More to the point, it would be hard to find a publication that more succinctly fits the definition of small town newspaper than the Vail Daily with a circulation of only 15,000.  They aren't covering her because she's notable cookbook author or because they would even know.  They're covering her because she's local interest. Personally, I'll believe the subject is a notable cookbook author when someone who actually writes about cooking full-time says she is, someone at one of these.  Msnicki (talk) 17:54, 8 January 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.