Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tony Conigliaro (mixologist)


 * 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. J04n(talk page) 14:44, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Tony Conigliaro (mixologist)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article links to very few other articles and makes no attempt to establish notability. I move for its deletion. Steel Mariner Talk  00:29, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  czar   &middot;   &middot;  02:21, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions.  czar   &middot;   &middot;  02:21, 10 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - The current version of the article is dreadful, and I would suggest it be revered back to a non promotional version like this one from the history. Articles like, ,  demonstrate that he is a notable bartender / mixologist. -- Whpq (talk) 15:29, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - Though the version you cited looks better, the point below still applies, which is that there is no notability here. It is a page about a bartender that lists several non-notable awards and makes several uncited claims to notability. Steel Mariner  Talk  12:17, 11 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - I can't see any way that he meets the notability criteria for WP:ANYBIO or WP:CREATIVE. Unless we can come up with some other criteria for establishing the notability of bartenders (something the Bartending Task Force never managed to develop), I don't think this passes muster. Ibadibam (talk) 18:36, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep, satisfies WP:NOTE, per, above. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 16:05, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Please elaborate. Of those articles linked above, only the first and second are what we usually consider a reliable source, and by my reading of WP:NOTE, they don't really give him significant coverage in a way that demonstrates long-term notability. Is there something I'm missing? Ibadibam (talk) 16:48, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * What's wrong with the third source? Luxury lifestyle magazines may not be of interest to the average person, but that the site has an editorial board. -- Whpq (talk) 17:45, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, my mistake. I didn't notice it was a magazine. My above comments still stand, though: could someone actually explain which notability criteria are met by this individual? Ibadibam (talk) 20:06, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The appropriate guideline is WP:GNG as established through significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. I picked out three sources of the ones I found quickly.  I feel these sources fit the guidelines.  The third source is a full profile where he is the primary topic.  The first and second sources do not feature him as the primary topic, but the coverage not a passing mention, and  sufficient for me to say that it represents significant coverage.  -- Whpq (talk) 20:21, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm going to say that notability per WP:GNG (via WP:BASIC) is arguable. There's not really any depth to any of these sources, and there's nothing that provides evidence of real notability. A lot of shopowners, chefs and bartenders get written up as part of lifestyle/dining guides, and there's been no consensus to date as to whether that's enough to establish notability. (If he had made an enduring contribution to mixology this would be a lot more clear-cut — cf. Victor Vaughn Morris.) Perhaps it would be safe to let the article stand, cut out all the fluff, and reassess it later per WP:NTEMP if enduring notability can't be established. In the meantime, I'll stick some article message templates on it to pinpoint some of the issues. Ibadibam (talk) 21:07, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone  03:29, 17 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - After snorting through the multiple independent published sources cited above, it seems that this subject does pass GNG. Not a rousing pass, but a pass, in my opinion. Carrite (talk) 03:55, 17 May 2013 (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.