Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gregory Gourdet


 * 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) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:18, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Gregory Gourdet

 * – ( View AfD View log )

appeared in Top Chef several times, but never won. I don't think that qalifies for an article; generally we have only the winners. I am listing the other non-winners who have articles but show no obvious notability; I'm listing them separately,   because checking might show that some of them might have notability otherwise.

Article is highly promotional, even for a field like this where promotional  articles are not uncommon.  DGG ( talk ) 18:30, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions.  DGG ( talk ) 18:30, 3 May 2021 (UTC)


 * DGG, I really wish you'd do research before nominating pages for deletion. Clear keep here. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 19:56, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep per WP:GNG due to significant coverage in Portland Business Journal, Portland Monthly, and Street Roots, which are all strong publications per the standards of WP:RS. I agree with Another Believer, this should have been brought up on the talk page or preceded with a WP:PROD, either approach would have saved Wikipedia's readers and editors from the hassle of a deletion discussion. It would, however, be good if somebody could improve the lead section to better reflect the significance of the subject. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 20:05, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * (Prod would have been inappropriate. If nobody had noticed the prod for a week the article would have been summarily deleted.) pburka (talk) 22:13, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:33, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:33, 3 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep I revised the lead a bit and added one review of his new book., could you point out whatever seems promotional to you in this article? I'm just not seeing it. Chers! Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk) 20:47, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:BASIC. Reliable sources have covered his cooking career and his cookbook. pburka (talk) 22:17, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. 1/local reviews of a local restaurant do not show notability -- to be notable, it has to be known outside its own service area 2/ promotional elements include: the personal life section,   the way the anonymous attacks system is written to be actually praise for him, and use of PR references--Portland Busines journal like all similar publications is merely a placeto publish press release, the Colorado Tourism Office is an ever less reliable source. . 3/ for the book,  one PW review that merely lists a few dishes is trivial review coverage- and However, the NYT reference was not present when I listed it, and might count for notability , if the other material mentioned here is removed.  DGG ( talk ) 00:28, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , Before nominating an article for deletion, you should review available sourcing, not just the sources currently used in the article. You're right, local reviews of a local restaurant may not demonstrate notability, but a simple Google search shows you there's adequate sourcing. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 00:46, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Some of what you say involves judgment calls, and I'll leave that aside. But when you state "Portland Busines journal like all similar publications is merely a placeto publish press release" you are absolutely wrong. There are certainly local business publications that match that description, but the PBJ is not one. Just click the article - the byline is for a "Staff Reporter." There's no shame in not knowing that, but I'd urge you -- especially as someone with a lot of well-earned esteem around here -- to be more cautious in making strong declarations about publications you're not actually familiar with. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 08:04, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I read that particular article. It's a promotional story or interview of the type disallowed by nCORP, where the individual is allowed o say whatever he chooses -- in this case "Gourdet shared his story today at a breakfast given by CODA, the longtime Portland addictions treatment provider that bestowed Gourdet with its 2016 Advocacy Award..." So it's essentially a reprint of a speech he gave. Looking further, at the journal as a whole, I should have said, that the journal is composed mainly of PR and notices., with some news items about general business topics; its  coverage of specific executives and concerns seems to be PR.  I can certainly make mistakes with unfamiliar sources, but not this time.   When I do, I acknowledge my error.  DGG ( talk ) 09:22, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * My language above may have been stronger than necessary, which I regret; but I stand by my point. I've documented some specifics about the Business Journal here, feel free to look there if you want evidence for what I say here.
 * "merely a placeto publish press release" -- this is a statement about the advertising department of the Business Journal, so it's irrelevant to our consideration of the editorial product. Yes, the publication will distribute press releases, clearly marked as paid content, for a fee. Other news publications that have an advertising department include the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal.
 * Your personal opinion of this specific article has no particular bearing on the case for notability. Discussion of how much value to assign to a specific source would make sense on the article's talk page, but it's not very relevant here. The relevant consideration for an AfD is whether a publication, overall, matches up against the WP:RS standard, which the Business Journal certainly does. With reference to WP:NCORP, which you bring up, the Business Journal certainly does not have a "vested interest" in Gourdet. The simple fact that their editorial department (not their advertising department) judged that their readership would be interested in a profile on this man is enough to contribute to an assessment of notability. (For what it's worth, many publications publish both high-intensity investigative journalism, and also profile pieces that don't offer much critical commentary. That's not a knock on the piece's factual accuracy or its judgment of the significance of its main subject, though.)
 * As a side note, I want to again state that there are plenty of business publications that actively damage their own reputations by either acting as content mills that accept custom submissions without much or any editorial oversight, and/or publish press releases in a way that doesn't distinguish them from editorial material. I understand why Wikipedia editors often view business-oriented publications with skepticism. But contrary to what was stated above, this publication does not do either of those things. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 00:01, 7 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep. While competing on Top Chef does not automatically confer notability, Gourdet has received enough coverage in reliable sources to meet GNG. Besides the Oregonian, New York Times, and Publishers Weekly sources already cited in the article, I found significant coverage in Food & Wine magazine and The Haitian Times . – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 02:22, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. There's coverage in the NYT here, Portland Mercury here, Portland Tribune here, Oregon Live here, etc. Additionally, Lord Bolingbroke found additional sources in Food & Wine and the Haitian Times. I think this is an easy and clear keep. --Kbabej (talk) 15:47, 10 May 2021 (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.