Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FoodMayhem

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 No consensus (default keep). Serious concerns with sourcing for context to establish notability still exist; this article should be improved and re-evaluated after a reasonable period of time is allowed forsuch improvement. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 03:16, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FoodMayhem

WP:NOTABILITY. One mention in an article about blogs does not meet notability requirements. KelleyCook (talk) 16:27, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kelley, I respectfully disagree. As mentioned in initial article content, blog has been featured on a well known area television show, as well as on their web site. It has been featured by Blogger. And then, it has received multiple mentions (you said only 'one'). The two mentions I listed are from the most notable publications New York Magazine and Village Voice, but there are dozens of others. --LonB (talk) 16:34, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A television show isn't a reliable source usually. Featured by Blogger isn't a real assertation of notability. If you can provide links to the mentions, it'd probably help. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 16:45, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide some background on why television coverage isn't reliable? That seems fairly notable. The links of notable mentions are in the primary article. --LonB (talk) 16:51, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe because it can't be easily verified, besides maybe a link to a transcript of the show? Furthermore, just getting local coverage is nothing. They once wrote an article about me in my local paper, does that mean I'm notable? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 16:57, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be facetious: you got a Wikipedia policy named for you. Drmies (talk) 04:53, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good question, you've gotten to the core of the issue, which is that notability is subjective. All we can do is try to follow the wikipedia guidelines. I can point to the fact that the show that featured FoodMayhem is in itself notable enough to have its own Wikipedia article. Which I just read and it mentions that the show has won three emmys and has a sister program in the UK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LonB (talk • contribs) 17:06, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, notability is quite objective. Not as objective as a calorie count, I'll grant you that, but hardly as subjective as one's 'opinion.' Drmies (talk) 04:52, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In additional response to initial question of notability, I have added information to the primary article about notable media distribution, which directly meets the web content notability guidelines. This web content is distributed by many notable publishers including Chefs.com, Chicago Sun Times, and Reuters --LonB (talk) 16:51, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only sources are trivial mentions, no substantial coverage. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:52, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ten Pound Hammer's comments is not true. (1) Primary source has won three emmys and featured the site in question. (2) The notability guideline also says a site is considered notable for any one of the three criteria, the third of which is "The content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher..." As already stated (and primary article updated to reflect) is the case for site in question. It is distributed via multiple well respected online newspapers, independent of creators. --LonB (talk) 18:59, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The sources' notability isn't in question. The scope is in question. In other words, the sources don't devote significant attention to the site. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:03, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so on the question of whether the source is relevant, we agree that the source is notable. The remaining question is whether it's significant. The source did a phone interview with the two authors of the site, then posted a web page, and did a full segment on its television show about the site. What more could the source have done to be significant"? Also, let's not lose track that even if the source was not significant, which it is, the article absolutely meets the other criteria mentioned above (for media distribution). --LonB (talk) 19:12, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep LonB makes a good case for its notability. Also, FoodMayhem is a pretty popular NY food blog. Yes, that's my anecdotal evidence, but google seems to agree - it's #3 when you google "new york food blog", FWIW (which may not be much I admit) --Bobbyrullo (talk) 23:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. These references are trivial, and the authors are clutching at straws trying to mold Wikipedia policy and fairly objective standards of notability and scope to ensure that the article fits the bill. It does not. I mean, I wish them the best, but the blog is not notable enough for inclusion here. Drmies (talk) 04:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, as you have demonstrated twice above that you don't follow instructions (per Ron's request to keep new comments below his notice, I'm not sure how much value your comments have. In a more logical discussion, I appreciate your input (as well as anyone else's) on this topic; however, simply saying something is trivial doesn't make it trivial. I'd like to rebut your comment but you didn't say anything objective, you've incited subjectivity. Can you perhaps provide factual backup for your comments? Thanks. --LonB (talk) 15:46, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I need a lesson in following instructions from you, thank you very much. Saying something is notable doesn't make it so; the burden of proof is on you--I'm sorry, on the objective author of any article, who should do their best to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest. This blog is a blog, and it's mentioned on some other blogs. Blogs are by definition user-submitted material, and are therefore not automatically notable. What's more, blogging invites self-aggrandization, for instance, in the entry on bloggerschoice awards, where we see that indeed, FoodMayhem has been nominated for best food blog! It was nominated by a blogger named LonB (really), and received one vote. Then, the blog was tagged by NYMag--once, along with seven others (and to call that 'referenced,' and to leave out the other 'referenced' blogs, is a bit facetious to say the least). By now, I'm on page 3 of my list of google hits for "FoodMayhem." Blogcatalog, Bloggapedia, Blogtoplist, Eatbrooklynfood.blogspot, Blogrankers--I could go on, and so does Google, for pages and pages without ever generating a hit one might call significant, independent, or in-depth. And I went through a dozen pages, and a dozen pages for "Food Mayhem." Nothing but mentions and rankings. So, Blogger mentions FoodMayhem--sure, but they have a blog of note every single day of the year.

Hey, I'm not sure how much 'value' my comments have either, but there is no need for you to resort to name-calling. Not logical? Inciting subjectivity? Pff. You can rebut my and other comments by providing proof of notability as required per Wikipedia:Notability (web). BTW, I made some small corrections to the article, per Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words, and Wikipedia:cleanup. Good luck to you, sir. Drmies (talk) 17:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Cool in the Code coverage is definitely not wikt:trivial. Other sources are. Nonetheless, scrapes by WP:N by the skin of its teeth. Not spammy or any other such problem, information is definitely verifiable. With no substantial concerns, borderline notability, and a useful article, there's no need for deletion here. Wily D 22:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not a notable blog and the few bits of coverage are highly trivial. 16x9 (talk) 01:33, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.