Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Randy Caparoso (2nd nomination)

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. Sandstein 10:18, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Randy Caparoso

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

Questionably notable and the best search links I found were here, here, here and here and I also plan to nominate his co-worker Roy Yamaguchi who may not be notable so I will search that one soon. Pinging only still active AfD users Melchoir, Kjkolb, Adrian~enwiki and JzG. SwisterTwister talk 06:39, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:41, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:41, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:41, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:41, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking independent sources to establish notability. Guy (Help!) 11:12, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The single source that the article cites is held by just four libraries worldwide and, full disclosure, I'm evaluating notability without consulting it. The lone citation was added to the middle of the article a month after creation by an uninvolved editor, so I doubt that it's the original source of everything, although it may well support the sentence where cited.

As the nom observed, there are search hits on his name. Digging into them, the only one I found of substance is the first 200 words or so of this Lodi News-Sentinel article, a profile in connection with winning a local award. He also happens to be that paper's wine columnist. All the other hits are things he's written, brief quotes, trivial mentions, or directory-type listings. Consequently he doesn't meet

WP:BASIC

.

An argument could be made that as a wine writer he's "regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors" and therefore satisfies

WP:AUTHOR. In my experience, a notable "expert" in a field, whether a food writer, journalist, historian, or biographer, has written books, and is often widely cited by Wikipedia itself. He hasn't and isn't, but if someone can construct a convincing proof that he satisfies WP:AUTHOR, I would be open to changing my recommendation. Worldbruce (talk) 07:28, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:52, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom, and Worldbruce's excellent detective work. Searches did not turn up enough in-depth independent coverage to show notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:22, 16 October 2015 (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.