Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sohla El-Waylly


 * 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, clear consensus that subject passes GNG. (non-admin closure) Devonian Wombat (talk) 08:20, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Sohla El-Waylly

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is promotionalism without a basis of notability  --   neither the executive chef at a major restaurant, nor editor in chief of a publication  DGG ( talk ) 00:03, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 01:20, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 01:20, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 01:20, 22 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep as article creator. While I agree that El-Waylly is neither the executive chef at a major restaurant, nor editor-in-chief of a publication, I'm not sure if that's the standard for deletion necessary. WP:GNG requires that the subject has received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." The article in GQ, in particular, meets that criteria, as well as the coverage in Gothamist and the Wall Street Journal. All three are well-known reliable sources. Finally, by comparison, there are similar articles on El-Waylly's colleagues at Bon Appetit - Priya Krishna, Carla Lalli Music, Brad Leone, & Chris Morocco. None of them are executive chefs or editors-in-chief either. However this deletion discussion goes, it might have relevance to those articles as well. Ganesha811 (talk) 01:35, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:28, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:28, 22 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep, I'm not really sure why you're saying this is promotionalism. While she is neither of those things, she is notable not only for being formerly the executive chef at a restaurant that received quite a lot coverage, but she also appears regularly on the popular Bon Appetit YouTube channel, which has in turn increased her notability. Most importantly, as Captain Raju mentions, she has received WP:SIGCOV through all the articles mentioned as well as part of the greater Bon Appetit coverage. Cerebral726 (talk) 15:49, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per . I am not sure why "executive chef" or "editor in chief" would be the standard to apply here, as opposed to WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, etc. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 18:47, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment/: If someone known as a cook is " neither the executive chef at a major restaurant, nor editor in chief of a publication" (what is the possible basis for such coverage as exists: either the person is notable in some other way or the coverage is PR. Why else would a publicatione write an article. We go not by references of any sort whatever, but those providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements. I am not aware of any publication, however reliable on general, that will no publish PR, and the very job of a PR agent is to get the work placed in as highly a reputed publication as possible. Every publication here, except the WSJ, has its entire or principal reason for existence that of publishing PR. EdibleBrooklyn, for example, publishes PR, generally very slightly disguised-- and I read every issue in detail, because I live there and because the PR it publishes is interesting to me. Advertisements about things people might want are of value, especially about things that are not yet notable otherwise.  There is an industry devoted to satisfying such needs,  and some of it can be quite valuable. But not in an encyclopedia . Professionals and businesses have enough publicity channels, many of them much larger and more visible than WP.      DGG ( talk ) 09:10, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Reply:, I disagree with many of your points. First off, you ask: "why else would a publication write an article?" Because they want to cover the subject and find it worthwhile to write about? In GQ's case, because they are writing about non-white chefs cooking "white" food? In Gothamist's case, because they are writing about the food scene of the city they call home? In WSJ's case, because restaurant reviews are a normal and steady part of their coverage?


 * It's odd that you say that these sources (other than WSJ) exist principally to publish PR. GQ is a long-standing and well established magazine. Gothamist is a well-known NY-centric site for NY writing. I don't deny that PR exists and could hypothetically influence coverage in these sources, but we have no evidence of that and to jump from that premise to the conclusion that El-Waylly is only covered because of wily PR professionals is specious. As others in this discussion have said, the standard to apply is WP:GNG and on that basis El-Waylly passes no problem. Ganesha811 (talk) 16:35, 25 May 2020 (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.