Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeff Galvin


 * 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. There are three calls to keep, three to delete, and two to merge with Chris Galvin. The issue rests on how much coverage the subject gets separate from his restaurants and his brother. Sources have been found which provide "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", and though the significance and independence of some of the sources have been questioned, enough remains to satisfy normal Wikipedia inclusion criteria. Some of the doubt regarding the suitability of the subject arises from the creation of the article by an acknowledged paid editor, but that's not a criteria for deletion. While there may be a case for the article to be merged with Chris Galvin - perhaps under a new umbrella title, that should be a discussion for Proposed mergers. I hovered with closing this as No consensus, but as it has been argued that the subject meets WP:GNG, and there is a feature interview with him in The Independent, then Keep seems most appropriate.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  21:32, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Jeff Galvin

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article is about a chef who appears to have no notability independent of his brother, Chris Galvin, who is himself a borderline case. The article was created by User:G2003, a paid editor. He inflated the appearance of notability by citing the same sources over and over again. One of the sources was written by Chris Galvin, and it seems like Jeff gets only passing mention (if any) in the others. Sammy1339 (talk) 02:50, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - The article has problems, but the subject passes WP:BIO. Some sources: On him and his brother (major pieces which are not about Chris with Jeff tacked on, but about both): The Guardian in 2005, The Guardian in 2006, The Guardian in 2009, The Telegraph in 2009. Sources about Jeff in particular: 2013 profile in the Independent, Slow Food UK, Hotel Management International. These were really easy to find, in just the first couple pages of ghits. It looks like in the late 2000s he was an up-and-comer while his brother was gaining success but now he seems to get just as much. Given all of this, which doesn't even count articles about his restaurants (at least one of which is Michelin-starred), it seems an easy pass of WP:BIO. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 03:44, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The Guardian in 2005 - I will grant this appears to be a good source. The Guardian in 2006 - This is primary (written by Jeff Galvin). The Guardian in 2009 - passing mention only. The Telegraph in 2009 - passing mention only. 2013 profile in the Independent - possibly also a good source, except it's only an interview with him, with no commentary, so it's not clear that it's not primary. Slow Food UK - I think this is an advertizement? Correct me if I'm wrong. Hotel Management International - primary source (written by Jeff Galvin.) --Sammy1339 (talk) 04:05, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The Guardian in 2009 - passing mention only. The Telegraph in 2009 - passing mention only - ? Both of these have his picture or his family's picture as the main image for the article. In the second one his name is part of the title. It's primarily about the restaurant, yes, but framed in the context of his accomplishment, or that he is responsible for its success. Not as good as the others, but certainly not a passing mention. You are indeed correct about a couple of them being written by him, which I didn't notice. So those don't count as secondary coverage. However, it does say something that he was able to publish these pieces in such publications -- something that wouldn't be the case for the vast majority of [non-notable] chefs. It's not a secondary source, but it's not nothing, in other words. Regardless, there are multiple good sources, and even these we're differing on are still top-tier publications for a chef. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 05:09, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Regarding the passing mentions, he is literally only mentioned by name once in each of those articles, as "... with his brother Jeff ..." and "... and Jeff ...". I'm not contesting that his brother is notable. Yes, he is in the picture, but so are other people, and anyway we can't cite a picture. Regarding the primary sources, yes they're useful if he turns out to be notable enough for an article, but primary sources can't be used to establish notability. --Sammy1339 (talk) 06:01, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 14:46, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 14:46, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 14:46, 28 October 2014 (UTC)


 * keep Top banana at L'Escargot (and others) is as good as it gets in culinary circles. Shame he hasn't had a show on daytime TV, as he'd then be a shoo-in for WP tastes. 8-(  Andy Dingley (talk) 15:23, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete, on the basis I disagree fundamentally with the analysis of Rhododendrites above. Articles are about the restaurants, or Chris Galvin, with Jeff 'tacked on'. Chris Galvin seems to have his name over the restaurant door (according to the decent 2005 Guardian article). As already pointed out, the 2006 article is written by Jeff. The author of this Wikipedia article is a paid editor and adept at the 'smoke and mirrors' tactic of adding all sorts of passing mentions (or articles about different things) to give a superficial look of 'notability'. Jeff, unfortunately, fails WP:GNG. Sionk (talk) 11:17, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I would support WP:CSD, but I can't see it either gaining support, or as being workable (the editor here at least admits what they're doing; many others just hide).
 * I support keep here because I think that a priori, a chef who reaches the pinnacle of cuisine should be seen as a notable chef. Same as for surgeons and baseball players. These restaurants, and being a head chef within them rather than a commis, are such a pinnacle. That meets WP:N.    Now we need WP:V. The newspaper columns aren't perfect, but they're enough for this.   Are there any trade journals for catering?  What do they say?
 * I don't see this article as anywhere near perfect - and if I'd paid money to a paid editor for this, I'd be most unimpressed! However I think this one, probably the only one of those I've seen in this batch, is about a subject (not an editor!) who does belong here. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:14, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * There's no consensus that chefs are automatically notable, as far as I'm aware. Surely notable chefs are ones that have received significant independent coverage, or won awards? Sionk (talk) 12:58, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * So they need to win awards, like maybe a Michelin star - which is what both Galvin at Windows and La Chapelle have done. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:43, 29 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment as any issue of notability will affect both brothers indistinguishably, I've added Chris Galvin to this AfD. My keep applies to both. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:50, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I've removed Chris Galvin, you can't seriously add another article to the AfD halfway through the process. Chris Galvin gets much more coverage than Jeff (for what reason I'm not sure - because he wears the trousers/is a better chef??). Suggest you nominate him separately if you have issues with that article. Sionk (talk) 11:55, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: Per the above, I have removed the AfD template from the Chris Galvin article, as per the removal of the subject from this discussion by User:Sionk (diff, diff). Of note is that removal of the subject from this discussion has not been contested by User:Andy Dingley. NorthAmerica1000 03:05, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. The refs look weak so my keep vote is weak. Szzuk (talk) 14:17, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete The restaurants may be notable but I'm not impressed by the depth of coverage in the sources.--Adam in MO Talk 07:32, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Chris Galvin – If this brother's notability is not clearly distinct from his brother's, why try to create and maintain a separate article? —BarrelProof (talk) 12:28, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 02:52, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 02:32, 13 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete or redirect to Chris Galvin per BarrelProof. Sous chefs are no material for encyclopedias. Moreover, the article suffers from WP:Orphan if we forget his brother’s article. Jeff5102 (talk) 10:02, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Did you read the article? He's rather more than a sous chef. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:15, 25 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. Insufficient reliable sources per 's analysis above.  Article reads like a resume.  Paid editing fundamentally has no place here.  -- RoySmith (talk) 02:29, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * "Paid editing fundamentally has no place here."
 * If that's true, then WP:CSD should become a valid reason for deletion of itself. AFAIK, that's not the case at present. Is that a direction we want to go in? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:05, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * If it was up to me, yes. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:46, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * And this kind of flimsy, promotional, cynically deceptive paid editing, definitely!! Sionk (talk) 13:09, 26 November 2014 (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.