Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Behr (food writer)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. W.marsh 00:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edward Behr (food writer)

Edward Behr (food writer) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

I have an axe to grind. I tagged this page for speedy A7 deletion, it was declined, and someone used it as a reason to oppose my RFA. After examining the issue more carefully, I am now convinced that he is, indeed, not notable. The source given in the article says that he was confused by the Associated Press as being the recently deceased Edward Behr (journalist). As far as I can tell, Edward Behr has written just two books - the Artful Eater and the Art of Eating - neither of which is particularly notable. The parameters of CSD A7 aside, WP:BIO should destroy this article, and the associated disambig page should become a redirect. YechielMan 04:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment The 'Artful Eater' was reviewed in The Los Angeles Times and Kirkus Reviews [1] Nick mallory 04:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) There's nothing wrong with having written "only" two books. Google tells me that this chap is quite well-known within his subculture; in addition to his books, he also publishes a notable quarterly magazine, The Art of Eating. I'm also very wary about someone who AfDs an article not because it genuinely ought to be deleted, but because he's sooking about his RfA result. That is not appropriate behaviour for any Wikipedia user, and is certainly out of line for an admin candidate. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 04:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Even if the RFA wasn't a factor in the reasoning for deletion, I would still have voted to delete the article. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, no. You're Zach, not Yechiel. Also, vote? Words like that make Baby Jimbo cry. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 05:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I know, remembering the old days. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 07:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. I don't think we have enough on this fellow to keep a biography about him. From most of the things I saw on Google, they were either websites that sell his books or the obit he was mentioned in. It would not be a good idea to have an article where the crux of it says "This man is known for being confused with a dead journalist." User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 04:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - One(?) book only, that quickly went out-of-print (now re-published). Publishes a food magazine, quarterly. But seems (at least by the blurbs he puts on his website) to be highly-esteemed by "foodies". Might qualify under WP:BIO as a creative professional who "(b) has won significant critical attention", but outside those circles he really isn't known/notable. The article as it exists right now isn't worth dinner at McDonalds however. Lipsticked Pig 05:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I have no problems if the article is recreated with better content (or modified now). User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 07:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Abort this AfD for formal reasons. "I have an axe to grind" is no way of starting an AfD and only shows that the opposition on the nominator's RfA was well-deserved. Malc82 17:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete — The only hit I could find on this article is for cooking websites and I found no reliable sources, and thus I say he is non-notable. ~ ΜΛGиυs ΛΠιмυМ ≈ √∞ 18:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Funny thing, but the vast majority of talk about Julia Gillard is on political websites. She's clearly non-notable outside her field. Let's go delete her ... fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 05:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep As per Malc82's argument this AfD is clearly a WP:POINT. There is at least a source and a half present in the article and can be a viable article with expansion... Ranma9617 02:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, Google News Archive hits (most behind paywalls) include encomiums like Behr's standing as one of this country's finest food writers [2], I share Saveur's admiration for Behr's in-depth examination of everything from cognac to vanilla [3], and no fewer than 13 NYT citations. I'll incorporate what I can, here. --Dhartung | Talk 08:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Stubtastic and non-notable. Notability seems to chiefly consist of who he is not. His book appears to be self-published. If there's at least an ISBN for his magazine, that'd go a long way towards quelling my distaste for an article that appears to be a {{for}} tag on steroids. Jouster  (whisper) 06:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • "Self-published" is a red herring. If Victor Gollancz wrote a book, would he go to Penguin to get it published? fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 13:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Level of sourcing provided does not establish notability per WP:BIO. It seems his main source of notability is having been confused with another (notable) journalist of the same name, for which claim only one source is provided. Waltonalternate account 13:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Dhartung, clearly passes WP:BIO with flying colors. Grind your axe somewhere else. RFerreira 05:34, 7 June 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.