Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evelyn Garcia (chef)


 * 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 no consensus. Liz Read! Talk! 04:37, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Evelyn Garcia (chef)

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Nothing here other than Top Chef contestant. The season article and List article should be adequate. After Midnight 0001 02:23, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. After Midnight 0001 02:23, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Food and drink,  and Texas.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 07:09, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Got quite a bit of coverage for this one event (e.g., , , , ). But it is all only due to being a Top Chef contestant. Likely WP:TOOSOON. Maybe will be notable in a few years if the coverage is WP:SUSTAINED. -Kj cheetham (talk) 12:40, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep (disclaimer: stub creator): Eh, I'm not going to bend over backwards to rescue this entry, but I've expanded the article to have 12 sources from various reputable publications. I'd prefer to see the article kept and expanded to provide an overview of her career and personal life. Personally, I'm satisfied with secondary coverage per GNG but I'll let others decide the article's fate. Happy editing! --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 17:33, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:GNG? possible undelcared paid article and advertisement in violation of wikipedia guidelines. 2600:6C50:7E00:400:346E:7B56:2AB8:7FB9 (talk) 14:21, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * (sigh) No, I was not paid to write the entry. This comment is not an assessment of secondary coverage. Concerns about the article's content can be addressed on the talk page. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 14:23, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete For now, agree with nominator. Not sure how this would be a paid advertisement as noted above as the article content seems encyclopedic, but I do agree that coverage for one event doesn’t seem to satisfy WP:GNG. If more sources come to light, please ping me and I would reconsider. SPF121188  (talk this way) (contribs) 20:39, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @Spf121188, an article on an encyclopedia being encyclopedic? Imagine that.  Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.  That's makes that statement redundant.  If you're closely associated with the subject in any manner, that's WP:COI.  I've only seen it once where someone was affiliated with a company wanted edits made and did everything they were supposed as to make it known and to make edit requests.  There are over 6.5 million articles on here, there millions that were created without any affiliation to the subject.  Sometimes the way an article is written might give the impression an editor could be.   Mr. C.C. Hey yo!I didn't do it! 02:09, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * , while I understand your point, there’s no need for sarcasm. But thank you.  SPF121188  (talk this way) (contribs) 03:41, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Relisting. Please review after addition of content. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:29, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep The Top Chef series the subject appeared in was aired March-June 2022. Sources include not just thorough during- and post-series coverage, but some pre-series from 2019. So WP:SUSTAINED has been met to my satisfaction. Baseless aspersions towards the article creator should be ignored. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:29, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Relisting comment: Relisting once more. I'm still not seeing consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:52, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep as you have contestants who placed significantly lower in other seasons and they have articles.  They fail GNG more so than Evelyn Garcia does.  If you wade through all the post season sources, as it's been said, you can find sources prior to her being on the show.  An article will never truly be complete.  Wikipedia is an ongoing collaboration in which articles will always be edited and possibly updated.   Mr. C.C. Hey yo!I didn't do it! 02:16, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Don't forget WP:OTHERSTUFF as part of Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. What sources WP:NEXIST are indeed more important than the current state of the article. -Kj cheetham (talk) 16:27, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @Kj cheetham, even though you want to avoid that, it does say (which you ignored) in certain instances, you can use that as part of a valid argument in a deletion discussion.  Mr. C.C. Hey yo!I didn't do it! 21:13, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep - There is clearly significant coverage throughout the article. If admin requires a source assessment table to prove notability, happy to provide one. However this is absolutely a case of meeting the general notability guideline which requires significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. It does not matter that this person has not achieved anything other than being a contestant on a television program or operating a food enterprise. It does not matter that her participation on this program is the reason significant coverage exists. The point is the coverage exists. There are several lengthy pieces from the Houston Chronicle and the Chroncited within the article. There is more coverage within the Eater - and this coverage especially is not routine, but rather lengthy and principally about Evelyn Garcia. This article needs expansion. At first it does sniff as a vanity puff piece but my qualms are assuaged by the creator confirming they were not paid to write the article. Given it is not an autobiography or undisclosed paid puff, and considering the coverage of the subject in multiple reliable sources, there appears no ground on which one can make a tenable argument for deletion other than WP:PAGEDECIDE - which has not been raised and if so I think would be weak. Clear case for keep, with improvements needed. MaxnaCarta (talk) 05:19, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I would also like to please point out to closing admin that there has not been an additional delete vote over the last eight days, and both relists have resulted in arguments for keep on policy grounds. MaxnaCarta (talk) 05:21, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep for the same reasons as MaxnaCarta. Lameness or grand-scheme insignificance of a subject's accomplishments aren't good reasons to delete articles. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 07:44, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom and other votes. Too soon with just  for competing on the television series.User4edits (talk) 10:09, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * How is it too soon? Media coverage has covered her for at least 8 months now. That is sustained. An essay is the viewpoint of another user, it is not a universally accepted guideline. Deletion is too harsh considering the coverage the subject has received. MaxnaCarta (talk) 11:45, 12 September 2022 (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.