Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laura Vitale


 * 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. I've taken a good look through the sources brought forward and those available online, and they are all passing mentions or self-published. As such, the delete arguments bear more fruit. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:29, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Laura Vitale

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

I am unable to find significant coverage of this chef. The only sources that have written about her are these: , of which the latter two are only trivial mentions. Person doesn't appear to meet requirements for WP:GNG. Till 11:59, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - The article does claim notability; however, I would agree with 'Till I Go Home' in that there are not many sources to support the article. I know that sources are what makes or breaks the notability of an article (and even more source with biographies) but I would vote for "weak keep" if there was anything remotely reliable making reference to the notability claims (The Sentinel, Progresso's The Idea Pantry, the YouTube recognition, etc.). Basically, I am saying that the claim or notability is there in the article and the article will survive Rfd, IF (and a big if) reliable sources can be found and cited in the article. I cannot locate any as of yet but good luck to those who want to keep. --Morning277 (talk) 19:19, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - Strange. She seems notable, but goole, google news, google archives, and even google.it all come up with very, very little. Unless more refs are found, I'm afraid deletion is the way to go. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:28, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - It may be simpy too soo for her to have an article. Her TV hosting appears to be really a set of youtube videos that she has hosted.  It has attracted some notice, such as mentions like pthis, but has not received the substantial coverage needed to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 18:25, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - It appears that she is actually working with Hollywood to launch some of the new YouTube Original Web Series with a company called Electus Entertainment along with celebrity chef Duff Goldman AKA the 'Ace of Cakes' from Food Network headed up by a former Food Network exec. Although her involvement is not on television, it is very notable and is part of a huge move into a digital world. p. Keep - I did some more digging and have updated the article appropriately with her involvement with Everyday Health and their 'Recipe Rehab' web series along with her columns she writes for a newspaper (The Daily Journal). It appears that, although sometimes difficult to find, there is credibility to this person's work. It is difficult to find in google because she has so many youtube videos that clutter the search results, however, it does appear that she is working on some major food entertainment projects that are worthy of this article. I also took a look at her presence on YouTube and noted that she has over 130k subscribers and her show appears to be the most watched youtube cooking show (based on stats provided by VidStatsx.com), although I could not confirm.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.20.224.10 (talk) 15:37, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It has to be documented by reliable sources to be notable. And that source you gave has one bit of coverage about her making a dessert. We need significant coverage to satisfy the guidelines. Till 05:16, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - I disagree with Till I Go Home and see that there are lots of credible references, newspapers etc. that were updated to this article making this person and the article very notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thebobbymiller (talk • contribs) 16:03, 26 June 2012 (UTC)  — Thebobbymiller (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Care to list some? - The Bushranger One ping only 00:58, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - Laura Vitale is currently working with Electus to launch the first ORIGINAL YouTube Cooking Channel (funded by Google. She has signed on with other celebrity chefs including Duff Goldman and Chris Cosentino both of which are former Food Network personalities getting away from TV and starting a digital channel with her watch her interview with Duff Goldman discussing the new venture. I really have a hard time understanding why people discredit individuals who make careers on YouTube (such as Laura Vitale) when clearly they are working on the same exact projects as personalities that migrated FROM TV to the internet to work with her. The first episode of her YouTube Original show aired This Morning on the official HUNGRY channel . This channel is being run by Bruce Seidel  as mentioned here in the press release, the former VP of programming at Food Network (which I believe makes Laura very notable). She was also one of the YouTube NextChefs (as mentioned in the forbes.com article referenced in the Wikipedia article about her). She was selected by the YouTube Next Lab and Audience Development Group late last year as one of YouTube's top culinary personalities.  These are powerful people in the food/entertainment industry who are working with and recognizing Laura, which makes her worthy of being recognized by this community as well. She is also part of 'Recipe Rehab' Season 1 (another ORIGINAL YouTube web series) funded by Google and produced by EveryDay Health and Trium Entertainment  where she competes against former food network chefs such as Jill Davie. Laura has been an integral part of the launch of two out of 100 of the new premium original channels, if you are not familiar with this initiative, it's a huge deal that Google has invested $300M into .  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.36.165.57 (talk) 15:10, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - I agree with the poster directly above this post, I've contributed to this article in the past and believe Laura is very notable as she has appeared in various news articles, press releases and has worked alongside various main stream personalities - not to mention she is a powerful food personality on the internet, perhaps the biggest I'm aware of (and I follow them all). I also agree that discrediting someone for being a 'youtube star' is doing a disservice to wikipedia. Television is not the only mainstream anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.184.212.3 (talk) 15:29, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - There are editors unfamiliar with the discussion here at articles for deletion. As some guidance, the key issue is whether the subject meets notability; notability in this case is not the simple dictionary definition, but rather represents Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines which must be met in order for there to be an article.  This is not a judgment on the subject's accomplishments or abilities.  Note that Youtube, Facebook, Myspace, most blogs, and press releases are not considered to be reliable sources for the purposes of meeting inclusion guidelines.  -- Whpq (talk) 21:15, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - Perhaps the correct thing to do here is note that she is NOT a chef and should be removed from the American Chefs category (she is not described in her article as a chef) but perhaps the article should be updated to describe her as a 'YouTube Personality' and cooking show host as she is certainly notable in that space and she is a cooking show host of various cooking shows for multiple entities on YouTube. There are several YouTube personalities listed on Wikipedia, as should be the case considering that they are very well-known for what they do - most of them are comedians or 'entertainers'. 166.20.224.11 (talk) 21:33, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Reply - Noting that she is not a chef, and reclassifying her as a Youtube personality fails to address the main issue of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 18:31, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -Scottywong | squeal _ 17:42, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000(talk) 16:12, 30 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep The article links to coverage she gets in Forbes. Other bits mentioning here here and there add to her notability.   D r e a m Focus  18:26, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - The Forbes bit is hardly significant coverage. It consists of simply two questions asked of the subject with no other text. -- Whpq (talk) 20:01, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You don't need to drag things out to a long interview. Far more meaning in a compressed one.  The fact they felt the person notable enough to cover at all is what matters.   D r e a m Focus  22:44, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Two questions doe snot constitute "Significant" coverage which is part of the notability criteria. -- Whpq (talk) 09:56, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * How can someone build an article with a source containing two questions? Seriously. Not all Youtube personalities are notable. Till 04:43, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Till I go home - I understand that you don't think YouTube personalities are notable, however, I think Laura has done a much better job at making a name for herself than most YouTube personalities listed on Wikipedia (who made their name dropping the F Bomb 5 times a minute). Anyhow, I live in the area where The Daily Journal newspaper is distributed and I'm sure I can get my hands on some of the papers in print (that are mentioned in the Wiki article you are trying to delete). I can scan them and send them to you (how would you like them delivered) You can also purchase them for about $3 each Example . Unless of course you don't think that printed papers are notable enough to be considered sources of credible information. I would also like to note that she was on Basil Magazine's radio talk show today, but I'm not sure if you consider radio to be credible either (although I'm sure it is for many other Wikipedia articles out there). And if that's not enough, tune into Daybreak USA tomorrow morning to listen to her live interview (NATIONALLY SYNDICATED / 75 markets) on a radio talk show that truly believes she is notable enough to interview . I'm not sure how, by Wikipedia standards, someone can not be notable, but yet national newspapers (forbes) and radio consider them to be not to mention local coverage. I'm sure I can dig up an article in the South Jersey Magazine about her too (again, does printed material count?). I'm not sure where you're from, but in South Jersey she's a very well known food writer and internet star. Let me know if you consider printed material to be credible and I will gladly hunt some of these down. 68.34.240.116 (talk) 03:36, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:30, 6 July 2012 (UTC)




 * Comment I'm currently not seeing the significant coverage in independent secondary sources. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:51, 8 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete: Despite the cries of WP:LOTSOFSOURCES above, the only source I see that comes even remotely close to significant in terms of meeting our notability guidelines is the Forbes article, and she receives only minor mention in that, as one of fifteen cooks mentioned (an interviewer asks here two rather banal questions, which she very briefly answers). The rest of the sources provided and available online are trivial, tangential, or routine mentions, and even taken together don't add up to much. On a scale from 1 to 10 with Jamie Oliver being a 10, she rates about a 0.06 in terms of notability based on the reliable sources available. This may be a case of WP:TOOSOON, but only time will tell. As for now, clearly fails out notability guidelines. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:04, 8 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete The Forbes piece doesn't quite cut it. No significant coverage found via Google web, news, books, and scholar searches.  Fails WP:GNG MisterUnit (talk) 18:48, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - trivial mentions does not WP:GNG make. GregJackP   Boomer!   03:03, 14 July 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.