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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 19:04, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brian McKenna (restaurateur)

[edit]

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

I have no doubt that the subject of this article is notable but this autobiography is so overly promotional in just about every sentence that it's hard to see how anything encyclopaedic can be made of it. I just stopped short of nominating it for WP:G11 speedy deletion in case anyone thinks it can be salvaged but as it stands it probably qualifies. RichardOSmith (talk) 17:33, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article cites many sources, from which a respectable article can be built. I've already taken first steps at cleaning it up. More help is necessary and appreciated. This is a clear case of WP:SOFIXIT. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:38, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If it's fixed up then great. I have no doubt that a good article could be created and have no reservations about notability but I'm not sure the original autobiography is anything like a good starting point which is why I proposed deletion for a completely clean rewrite. It's hard to argue with SOFIXIT but this is not a subject I feel particularly expert in or motivated by. I'll happily withdraw the nomination if the ongoing cleanup improves the article but right now it's a textbook example of the pitfalls that WP:Autobiography lists - and deletion would clearly resolve them. RichardOSmith (talk) 18:46, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:38, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:38, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:38, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Whether RichardOSmith feels up to the task of fixing the article or not, it is fixable, and therefore shouldn't be deleted. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:21, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep What WikiDan61 said. Sources exist.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:23, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:23, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:42, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: coverage in several sources, meets WP:BASIC. This article, although it can certainly be more neutral, is far from WP:CSD#G11. The problems are certainly fixable via editing; be bold. Esquivalience ^t 02:01, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Just get rid of the promotions, and it's pretty good. RES2773 (talk) 21:30, 12 June 2015 (UTC)RES2773[reply]
Keep. I have removed some of the self-promotion from the article. It's certainly annoying, but should not prejudice us into deleting the article, the subject is notable. Maproom (talk) 08:38, 13 June 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.