Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keith Wallace (wine writer)

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. Star Mississippi 02:03, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Wallace (wine writer)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

I've done a source assessment on the article talk and am just not seeing notability outside of local coverage and some industry publications. Appears to have been created by an SPA and has recently been edited by likely UPE. valereee (talk) 14:57, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Pennsylvania. valereee (talk) 14:57, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep He's written a book or two and seems to be an expert in several interviews. [1] a brief NPR piece, he's been a writer for years. [2] The Daily Beast, not the best source, but it seems reasonable. [3] Philly Mag, about him getting married but it's broad enough seem to pass as a reliable source. Courrier Post article about the Philadelphia Wine School he's founded [4]. An AP article about him (partly) https://apnews.com/article/health-coronavirus-pandemic-technology-lifestyle-business-f6e0047d058b115e48f7a3b63ec94544]. At least meets GNG. He's done brief expert interview pieces in Reader's Digest. He seems to have enough traction. Oaktree b (talk) 16:59, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Daily Beast articles are by him, not about him. The NPR is an interview. There's a source assessment at article talk. valereee (talk) 17:23, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I know, they seem to support GNG, he's quite well known in the world in which he writes. Actually the Daily Beast article I had cited is by Tara Nurin, talking about the fellow. I think it's acceptable. Ignore the sources in the article, look at the links I posted, 2 or three which I think are reliable/not written by him. The rest helps to prove GNG, that's he's been known in the wine world since at least 2009 (the date? (unsure off the top of my head) of the NPR thing I listed). here's rating some wines, as an expert for a magazine in an article written by another person. [5] Oaktree b (talk) 19:53, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment One book review here in Publisher's weekly [6] and another here [7]. Might just pass AUTHOR. Oaktree b (talk) 20:04, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Two book reviews, about a dozen consultations as an expert going back to 2009, he founded the Wine Academy thing in Philadelphia, this is at least GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 20:08, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a WaPo article about him, as a science of wine/MythBusters type thing [8]. Oaktree b (talk) 20:10, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:50, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. From the evidence presented by Oaktree, I think there are enough independent reviews to pass WP:NAUTHOR.4meter4 (talk) 20:40, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:22, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:32, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article fails both WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR. I reviewed the assessment on the article's talk page and the sources in the article as well as the sources mentioned above. Aside from the one piece in the Philadelphia City Paper there's nothing to go on. That's one article, and WP:GNG requires several reliable sources; one doesn't cut it. There are a couple of routine book reviews that are really the only other claim to reliable sourcing, and those are about a given book, not about the author. The amount of information about the author is borderline trivial for each one. Then there's this mentioned above which is absolutely a trivial mention. So the article's subject doesn't meet WP:GNG. As for WP:NAUTHOR, yes he's written a book and written articles and contributed to publications, but none of them are "a significant or well-known work" as required. Yes, the book does have reviews, but a book being reviewed does not make it significant, nor does it make it well-known. - Aoidh (talk) 10:44, 10 July 2022 (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.