Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin Sbraga

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 delete. Notability not established. Generally, a subject's own website does not satisfy the criteria for an independent source that is required by WP:GNG. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:06, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Sbraga

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

Mostly unsourced article about chef that fails WP:GNG SanAnMan (talk) 01:37, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:04, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:04, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:04, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is a source, which is his website 86WikiEditor (talk) 02:17, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"There is a source, which is his website." Bingo. That's the problem. Still I do see some Ghits.... Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:30, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also just noticed the page in its current form is a 100% copy WP:COPYVIO from that said website, tagged G12 for this. - SanAnMan (talk) 11:25, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the copyvio portion. — Diannaa (talk) 15:44, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete articles require multiple, secondary, 3rd party indepth, reliable sources. His website is by very definity not third party. It is also a single source, and we more than one source. The mentions of google hits do not suggest any are indepth.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:43, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. Searches mainly turn up puff pieces, a restaurant closure and litigation issue, neither of which are suitable for a Wikipedia article. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 01:44, 8 September 2016 (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.