Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Mitzewich

John Mitzewich

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nothing establishes real notability. Written in a promotional tone, with no reliable, secondary sources. (Author contested prod). OSborn^arf_contribs. 14:11, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Chicago Tribune, August 6, 2008: "One of the most popular video cooks however is John Mitzewich of YouTube fame." The San Jose Mercury News published an in-depth profile of him on February 9, 2011. He's notable, and shortcomings in the article can be addressed through normal editing rather than deletion. Cullen328 (talk) 16:15, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are additional articles to substantiate if needed. For instance this Bay Area Living Article is from a small time news establishment but it does establish the fact that he is "big time." Someone with more knowledge of him should be able to fill in the obvious gaps. Enburst (talk) 19:06, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That's a reprint of the Mercury News article. Cullen328 (talk) 21:28, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:37, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable cook. Wouldn't be on here if it weren't for the systemic bias in favour of people who do things virtually rather than in their own location. MLA (talk) 12:54, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What matters is not our own personal opinions about systemic bias and virtual chefs, but rather what the reliable sources say about Mitzewich. This sort of in-depth coverage is what notability is all about: YouTube foodie John Mitzewich embraces Valentine's Day, San Jose Mercury News, February 9, 2011 This is the newspaper of record for the Silicon Valley. Bottom line - he's notable.Cullen328 (talk) 21:23, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Despite starting as a "virtual" youtube poster and blogger, there is now substantial coverage outside his blog. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gromgull (talk • contribs) 07:34, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another reference YouTube viewers turn chefs into unlikely stars, San Francisco Chronicle, January 13, 2011 Cullen328 (talk) 21:35, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Chef John should have a wiki entry, he is a great blogger, if Philip DeFranco can have one without question, so should Chef John. Sethlife — Sethlife (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep references in prominent sources seem to establish notability pretty indisputably. -- 16:01, 2 March 2011 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by InspectorTiger (talk • contribs)

Keep Wikipedia have many pages with less-notable persons. Chef John is great. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.148.242.6 (talk) 16:41, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]