Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Yosses

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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] William Yosses

William Yosses (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Mr. Yosses is the White House pastry chef. Does that meet WP:BIO? I don't think so. NawlinWiki 02:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. I wouldn't have thought he deserved an entry at first, but considering the nature of the position and the massive amount of major media coverage (most of it trivial, but not all [1]) I had to reconsider. He is also a coauthor of the book Dessert for Dummies. If there is anything else that is a greater accolade in the culinary field than being a head white house chef, I don't know what it is. IronGargoyle 02:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete As the article stands it fails WP:BIO the subject may or not be notable but the article fails WP:A. If the article was improved and referenced and notability shown I would change my perspective. Jeepday 02:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete On a side note, you have to laugh that the person who wrote "Dessert for Dummies" is serving dessert to George Bush. As for notability, would you care who the previous holders of this position were?Citicat 02:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Some people might indeed care who the previous chefs were, though some of it is more related to the person who was President than the actual person. However, I don't know that this individual is sufficiently notable on their own. Perhaps an article listing Chefs at the White House might be a worthy idea? This could include both main chefs and pastry ones and whoever else is there. Mister.Manticore 04:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, unless the second-floor maid gets an article too. Denni^talk 06:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, article does not assert the notability of the subject. If he is notable and someone can make the necessary improvements, then great. But articles like this really aren't good enough. PC78 08:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - some press coverage, and author of a book in the Dummy series in combination meets notability for me. -- Whpq 17:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - "Me too" Press coverage, published author, position taking some prominence in field. Autocracy 20:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - he's an author and being in the white house gives him some notability. The undertow 00:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep because of his book, not because he's the WH pastry chef. --דניאל - Danielrocks123 ^contribs 01:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
• Move to List of White House Chefs and add more chefs.—Carolfrog 08:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Even if the subject was notable (and I don't see where he is) the article clearly does not meet WP:N or WP:A a single press release is not notable. The title of this debate is Articles for deletion/William Yosses not subject for deletion. The subject may or may not be notable but clearly the article does not meet Wikipedia expectations for inclusion. Jeepday 12:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  • WP:A is a different issue that may not merit deletion (if the issue is simply verification rather than original research). However, notability is the characteristic of a subject, not an article, so it is fully appropriate to discuss the subject despite the state of the article. Adding the sources below as external links would take care of WP:N, although they really should be incorporated into the article as prose. -- Black Falcon 07:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Sigh, but Keep. More sources than you can squeeze a pastry bag at. Yes, most are due to the White House appointment (Hint of Shift in White House Kitchen New York Times; [ New York Post New York Post ...) but not all: [2] [3] Citarella Macy's. They're not quite "unconnected with the subject", but they're not chicken feed either. Between that and the book, I think he's notable enough. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per the sources provided by AnonEMouse: sources + author = keep. Also see my response to User:Jeepday above. -- Black Falcon 07:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep. Per nom. Black-Velvet 08:13, 16 March 2007 (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.