Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martin cj mongiello

:{{la|Martin cj mongiello}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|Martin cj mongiello}})

:({{Find sources|Marti Mongiello}})

:({{Find sources|Martin Christopher Joseph Mongiello}})

He may be a very nice chap and a decent chef, and have worked for a grown up organisation, but does that make him notable, or has he inherited notability from his surroundings? I think the latter, and propose deletion. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:42, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:53, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Placing an AfD five minutes after it was created is not cool. Bgwhite (talk) 08:16, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

:*cmt He hasn't become any more notable in the intervening period. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 08:51, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

:*Comment Actually, taking an article that has been recreated by the subject after [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Martin+CJ+Mongiello being speedily deleted for being a blatant advert] is a perfectly legitimate action. Valfontis (talk) 20:27, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment No one on the Mongiello Associates team or group of companies has ever understood why it was necessary to belittle him by saying "have worked for a grown up organisation." One never considers it needed to strip down others. Where is your interest in ripping apart his mentors also in the White House http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Scheib who each of their pages has been used as a direct model for Mr. Mongiello's page? Where are the tons of CN's smashed all over those pages of each other Chef? In the case of Mr. Mongiello, it's a massed attack of unscrupulous nature on a person who has done so much global work for the poor and hungry - one cannot even get it typed up before it is deleted and attacked, on a personal level. Not a professional level. I personally know he has even donated financially to Wikipedia in the past so it still never bodes right off to have Administrators ripping people down and making fun of them. Given some time to work on an OPEN ENCYCLOPEDIA (the stated goal) those of us here with many degrees would be more than happy to work on anything to ensure it is better, accurately cited and correctly listed.Mongiello Holdings, LLC group of companies 22:04, 6 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abghty (talk • contribs)

::* Please read about Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines, and see the arguments to avoid in deletion discussions; the most common being "other pages exist!" The {{tlx|cn}} tags are there because large claims have been made; see WP:BURDEN. tedder (talk) 22:09, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

:::*Comment A professional comment on the article itself is that attaining notability from his surroundings would be impossible since the individual attained over 200 awards and medals, worldwide, prior to being investigated for one year (including his family) to be appointed to the White House Military Office. The investigation cost the Americans taxpayers over 100,000.00 Sterling so the flavour shows the proof is in the pudding.--Mongiello Holdings, LLC group of companies 22:19, 6 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abghty (talk • contribs) 22:19, 6 March 2012‎ (UTC)

::::* Where are the reliable sources to any of these claims? tedder (talk) 22:22, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete Strong delete Fails WP:GNG: lacking multiple significant coverage in independent 3rd party sources. Note that Wikipedia is not a place for promoting one's business or career. Wait until you are notable enough that someone independently writes an article on you. See also our business FAQ. Valfontis (talk) 23:55, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
• Amending to "Strong delete" per Fiddle Faddle's cleanup. There's nothing here. Valfontis (talk) 15:20, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
• Comment I'm assuming and hoping you checked my edits and found them to be valid. I was careful to do a decent editing job, but am conscious that the article, after removing the puffery, self eulogising references, invalid references and the material related to them, is rather empty. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:39, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
• Your edits are fine, no worries. I searched on my own and couldn't find anything else. Valfontis (talk) 00:29, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
• Comment the flurry of alleged references is interesting. A load of Youtube items is not a good omen, and at least one reference doesn't mention the subject of the article at all. At least one of the alleged references is a drive by mention of the man's name, but does nothing to assert his notability. This reinforces my view when I nominated it that this man is as notable as I am. I've been mentioned in the press, too, but that does not qualify me for any notability in an encyclopaedic sense. Smoke and mirrors and vanispamcruftisement Fiddle Faddle (talk) 00:13, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
• Comment The unprofessional comments focused on the page content only do not add up nor make any sense, such as, "I've been mentioned in the press, too, but that does not qualify me for any notability in any encyclopedic sense." The individual has appeared in the news more than 100 total times of the printed effect and on televisions stations spanning the globe in numerous languages. Aside from serving and protecting Royal households and the President with a Top Secret clearance the intimation is that you have done this also, your entire family has also gone through such investigations and you also served in the military for your country for decades. The comments don't add up when stating, "you have done all of this also." Additionally, the mentions of YouTube completely vacate any responsibility for the fact that you DO NOT mention the qualified technologies of footage on actual and real television stations.

:In fact, any legitimate citations are glossed over unprofessionally and are not focused on the Wikipedia requirements to focus on the content only in a verifiable manner. The citaitons provided of television footage obviously are pre-technology level associated before television stations embedded shows and appearances - thusly they can only be provided technologically on YouTube or Facebook or other third party platforms due to length.

:Continuing to attack and randomly delete letters from the White House, deleting citations from the First Ladies Office and deleting citations verifiable through the United States National Archives is not contributory to the common good. Your continued violations of unsupported statements are a violation of the community trust.Martin CJ Mongiello, MBA 02:18, 7 March 2012 (UTC) certainly in this current incarnation — Abghty (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Comment I've been trying to go through the article to work out which of the references have the potential to be WP:RS and which are part of a smokescreen. I've flagged several as being part of the smokescreen, though a previous attempt was reverted by the article's creator and main editor, whom I have flagged here as a SIngle Purpose Account since that is certainly the behaviour exhibited at present. I've also removed several references which purport to cite something but cite nothing at all. A previous edit to do that was reverted by the same editor. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 13:44, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
• Weak keep - although in its current condition this is a total mess, and the shameless involvement of Mongiello's company account (Abghty) in the process has made it much worse, yet I'm willing to admit that there seems to be a real possibility that there's a marginally notable person somewhere under all the debris. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:41, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

:*Have you done any googling? I admit it is difficult under the weight of Mr. Mongiello's self-promotion efforts, but like I said in my !vote, I can't find any reliable, significant and independent third party coverage of him on the Internet, in books or in magazines. Valfontis (talk) 15:48, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment The article's creator and primary editor has now been blocked. That has given me breathing space to remove what I perceived to be uncited and irrelevant stuff. Obviously the work I've done is open to scrutiny and your mileage may vary. I believe we can now begin to see the wood from the trees. I see Mongiello ad a decent cook, a man who turned his naval career around (though that is uncited) and that is pretty much it. I see nothing to confer any encyclopaedic notability on him. You could argue that "I would say that" since i nominated the article and then edited it mercilessly, but you must judge it on its merits, inspecting as many intermediate revisions as you see fit, to determine its notability.

:The Youtube alleged references were all either uploaded by the article creator or were in violation of copyright, or both, and cannot be used. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:58, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• Keep as article as it now stands crosses the verifiability and notability thresholds using reliable third-party sources. - Dravecky (talk) 23:38, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

::I don't see how the article's subject currently passes notability as two of the references appear to be passing mentions and the note about the submarine does not confer notability on the subject (we have no idea if Mr. Mongiello contributed to the sub's getting the award). Being included in a cookbook does not confer notability--my former employer also has a recipe in that book, and despite being peripherally involved with a notable national figure (as was I), she is not notable (and neither am I). I can't access the other reference, but adding all the sources together, I don't think this meets the WP:GNG requirements of "significant coverage" or "multiple sources". Notability (the White House) is not inherited (working at the White House). Am I missing something? Valfontis (talk) 00:29, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

:::Comment I have the same question for you. I've done a load of work in the article and I'd kind of like him to be notable because of having done the work, but I can't spot anything that sets this chef apart from a couple of tens of thousands of other decent chefs. The award for the sub galley is an internal naval award, one I left in the article out of regret for editing it down so tightly. Every second goshdarned book seems to have "bestseller" on its front nowadays, and the other references also don't pass the WP:GNG test for me. Your mileage obviously varies, and I wonder if you would elaborate on your rationale, please? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 00:39, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

::::Valfontis, note he wasn't "the" chef at the White House, the article claimed he was "the" chef at Camp David and a sous chef at the White House. I wonder how many sous chefs there are at the White House. tedder (talk) 00:45, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

:::::Four. Valfontis (talk) 01:32, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

::::::Comment The White House sous chef role cannot, then, be a cornerstone of this person's notability. One of four is not notable unless one is part of a team that is inherently notable. White House sous chefs are not an inherently notable team. I'm discounting the submarine galley award as a non notable subcategory of a borderline notable award. Yes, the award has its own article at present, but its not as if it were the Oscars. The recipe in the cookbook is one out of so many others. All must therefore hang upon his employment in Camp David. I submit that this provides tenuous notability at best. It is quasi-notable, yes, but misses the WP:GNG criteria. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 11:37, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete. (note I commented above, but haven't officially given my !vote until now). When this AFD started there was a lot of blustering from the named individual and/or his team. However there is very little in reliable sources to indicate a depth of coverage necessary to meet WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Most of the notability is conferred (working at the White House and Camp David, working on a sub that won an award). Thanks to Timtrent and Valfontis for working through this. tedder (talk) 11:49, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

: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.