Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zac Young

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. (non-admin closure) Szzuk (talk) 14:48, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zac Young

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

WP:BLP of a person whose claims of notability are referenced entirely to blogs and primary sources, rather than to any evidence of reliable source coverage about him in real media. Neither being a non-winning contestant on a reality show nor appearing as a guest judge on a different one is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be referenced much, much better than this to qualify for a Wikipedia article — he would have to pass WP:GNG on the strength of media coverage, but none of the sourcing here counts a whit toward getting him there. Bearcat (talk) 04:41, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:35, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:48, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:35, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, samee converse 08:32, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a rudimentary WP:BEFORE comes up with lots of coverage in reliable independent sources of this pastry chef, inventor of the renowned PieCakein, celebrity chef, and culinary businessman. FloridaArmy (talk) 08:43, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:38, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – is Mr. Young Julia Child no. But has garnered enough reliable – secondary news coverage to meet WP:GNG guidelines as shown here [1]. ShoesssS ^Talk 15:20, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep needs some sprucing up, but seems to meet GNG. GlassCobra 16:32, 24 April 2018 (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.