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 Merge to Kennedy's Confection magazine. Although there is no clear consensus for or against deleting this article, notability does seem to be borderline at best. Together with the BLP1E issue, it would appear that merging to Kennedy's Confection magazine would be the best solution. Randykitty (talk) 19:27, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Angus Kennedy (chocolate taster)[edit]

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

This subject is somewhat on the edge of notability and given that the article was written by his PR agency (see for example the upload information for the photo) I think this needs to be reviewed by the community.

The Telegraph is the only source that I consider to be reliable and even that wreaks of PR (for example not listing a reporter's name). The others are all tabloid sources which are not any use and are most definitely rehashed press releases. I've searched in factiva and google books to find more coverage but haven't found anything else that would be useful. SmartSE (talk) 21:06, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this isn't my field but I note at Kennedy's Confection magazine that that article states (unsourced as is the rest of that article) the magazine started in September 2008 which is at variance with the claim that Kennedy edited it for 20 years. The Whispering Wind (talk) 22:57, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would have just redirected/ merged to the publication's article. Candleabracadabra (talk) 03:37, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. See COIN for more details on the COI. This interview that I came across makes it clear to me that the sources in the current article are of no use for establishing notability as they can't be considered independent. SmartSE (talk) 20:53, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:38, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I was able to find a few RS Mirror UK, The Telegraph, and Huff Post, and mentioned trivially in NBC. Multiple sources and passes GNG. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 20:52, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, this link user:Smartse provided presents some interesting problems. The PR agency who wrote this Wikipedia page and secured the media coverage specializes in hiring journalists that write articles for the media and shops them around until someone publishes them as-is under their own byline. So in this case the whole idea that PR has corrupted the the editorial process so that publication's are no longer independent, something I would normally have a dim view on is a legitimate problem. It is completely reasonable in this very rare case to speculate that all those news stories don't actually meet GNG, because they are not independent, but actually written by their agency's own team of writers. But how can we know for sure? Maybe someone could email the reporters and just ask... CorporateM (Talk) 16:05, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete being a chocolate taster is of minor human interest for a newspaper but it isn't a suitable subject for a serious encyclopedia. M ight be WP:TOOSOON depending on how his writing career goes. Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:37, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note to the closing administrator, As of right now there are more than one reliable source which including The Telegraph, Huff Post, and NBCNews. Right now we have a claim that these are mirror sources. I feel more evidence is need to provide a definite determination. Per policy right now I am seeing multiple coverage from independent sources and passes GNG as it stands. The image is a bit concerning, but nonetheless can be cleaned. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 17:06, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Angus has been the subject of multiple, in-depth articles in the media, however there are some unique circumstances that put the independence of those articles in-question. Primarily that he has hired a PR agency that claims to write articles for the press that are published without a disclosure that they are not independent, but are actually PR materials carefully written to pass as a news article. We may never know for sure if those press articles were actually written by PR or independent journalists, but I feel we should err on the side of caution. CorporateM (Talk) 19:44, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to make two assumptions and then reiterate why this is an improper rationale. His profession is unique and unusual. Per policy at this time he has been covered in multiple reliable sources. The concern is that some sources maybe connected. At this time we cannot be sure which one are and which ones aren't. If we can definitively prove these sources are the case then by all means delete. But right now what I am seeing is a dangerous precedence being set. We are saying delete the uncertain and this person will never be notable because all sources will be dubious. This is the issue why this article must be retained. This situation is unique and new policy needs to be established until then we follow what we know, watch the tone in the article, and remove the image, deletion is not the way. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 00:00, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Being a chocolate taster is hardly unique. See for example: [1] [2] [3]. I don't think that this should be deleted because it was written by his PR agency, but because we know that the few sources that are available are clearly churnalism rather than journalism. Notability shouldn't be a matter of there being sources, we have to consider the quality of those sources as well. Has he been taken note of, or has he paid to appear in newspapers? That's an important distinction to make as it determines whether the sources are truly independent. If there were sources in higher quality sources that discussed his career in depth, then I would change my mind, but those don't exist. There's no precedent being set, we're discussing this article and only this article - that's the point of AFD! I do agree that this is an unusual case though. SmartSE (talk) 19:40, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There needs to be some clarification here. What you showed me is that chocolate tasting is a legitimate profession. My question is how many tasters receive coverage from reliable sources? I've cited what are three clear reliable sources, Huff Post, NBC News, and The Telegraph. It is common for these sources to reference one another. What we need is evidence that they were paid to cover him, otherwise mere allegations are not enough. Do we know who that company pays? Everything is speculation, in fact do we even have other chocolate tasters who are deemed notable to compare to? As far as I can tell his is the only chocolate taster to have an article here. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 01:39, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another source CNBC, I'm fairly confident that this is not paid editing. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 01:55, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was asked to take a second look per the sources noted by Valoem. The coverage he found reaffirms my opinion that the appropriate outcome is a merge to Kennedy's Confection magazine where the subject was active for two decades and where there's plenty of room to note a few bits about who he is and his career. He has received some coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 15:30, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per GNG multiple reliable sources. -- GreenC 03:15, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm all for oddball BLPs, but this is really a BLP1E, and also advertising-created. If this was at all a negative BLP, there would be nary a keep.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:39, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge in reduced form to Kennedy's Confection magazine. It appears that he is principally covered for his job as a chocolate ... reviewer? ... there. Sandstein 18:46, 30 May 2014 (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.