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 Keep no longer speedy because it was nominated on the 8th and seems to have fallen through the cracks but keep nonetheless. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 17:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Dunford Wood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

At the moment, this article is pure advertorial. Its subject appears to meet the notability criteria, and the article is not quite blatant enough for {{db-spam}} treatment, but it needs a substantial rewrite before it can meet the WP:NPOV and WP:V criteria. I'm listing it here in the hope that the original contributor, or someone else who cares deeply enough about the article's subject, will perform the necessary rewrite before this AfD expires. I've left them some hints on their talk page as to how they might improve the article. The Anome (talk) 12:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion. --Blechnic (talk) 23:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. May also be an autobiography. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, for the reasons the nom gave. If the subject is notable, it should stay. Cleanup and rewrite are editing issues, not a reason for AfD.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing to Weak keep. I've added a couple of sources to the article, but this was all I could find in a gsearch. A gnews search turns up a few more that have some promise, but they are pay sites. UK newspapers might have more info, but I have no clue how to access them easily.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Wknight94 (talk) 18:23, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• delete unless sourced. 10 days totally should be long enough to find some references. The accomplishment claimed might possibly be notable, but we'd need to see what the sources said about them. DGG (talk) 21:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral It is written in an advertorial style, as The Anome said, but it seems that after a lengthy rewrite, it could possibly be notable. I could go either way. Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 21:58, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep AFD is not cleanup. If the nominator wants the article rewritten then they should do it themselves. Reducing an article to a stub is easier than AFD so there is no excuse for this disruption. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:17, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The references now in the article are reviews of his work in major newspapers and confirmation that the restaurant where he is executive chef won a major award. That's plenty to show notability. There are still problems with the tone of the article but that is a reason for editing not deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:BIO, not the primary subject of multiple independent reliable sources. --Ave Caesar (talk) 19:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep Nominator admits this is a forced editing attempt, not a genuine AfD. He's a well known British television chef. This is another "you clean up this article at gunpoint" nomination, by an editor who's not capable of or willing to clean up the article themselves. Ask the folks at WP Food or something, but don't force clean ups of articles that you're not willing to clean up. If you're not, why should someone else want to? --Blechnic (talk) 22:58, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Not only was this an admittedly bad faith nom, but the article has now been cleaned up and sourced sufficiently. Jim Miller (talk) 18:37, 18 June 2008 (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.