Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lucinda Bruce-Gardyne

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 no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:16, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lucinda Bruce-Gardyne

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

Promotional article for food writer. Worldcat shows about 100 copies of each of her two books--notable cookbooks typically have ten times that number.Two minor awards from non-notable sources presented as :major awards". Reviews and notices can undoubtedly be found, but we should be capable of distinguishing the important from the unimportant.

As for promotionalism, the worldcat listing for her first book says "Sue Spaull with Lucinda Bruce-Gardyne.", which means that she is the fired writer--one step up from ghost-writer--and the article even admits it: "she was hired to write..." DGG ( talk ) 05:09, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Appears to be a run-of-the-mill ghost writer, at least right now. I'd be willing to change my mind if better sources are found and added to the article. Bearian (talk) 23:12, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep she has received extensive third party coverage from WP:RS and passes WP:GNG, Huffington Post, How to Cook for Food Allergies (showed coverage from BBC good food magazine), The Telegraph, and Huffington Post profile. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 13:16, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 14:10, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:12, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the articles noted by Valoem are definitely substantial in their coverage of this subject. The article needs work. Candleabracadabra (talk) 21:55, 28 April 2014 (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.