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. No prejudice on recreating with a different focus of the article but that is an editorial decision, not a deletion discussion decision. Mkdw^talk 00:49, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ronnie J. Seaton, Sr.[edit]

Ronnie J. Seaton, Sr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

I'm bringing this to AfD because I feel it needs discussion. The subject alleges he was a chef at the White House, and has written a book about it. Various press sources allege that he was never there. Whether he was or wasn't a White House chef, the question is - is he notable? Peridon (talk) 10:53, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Probable delete. I suppose his book has the potential to become notable as a (possible) hoax, or alternatively as culinary quasi-fiction. The review/investigation in yesterday's New York Post is a substantial piece of independent reporting. [1] The story has also now shown up in a few other national publications, but as far as I can tell, these are essentially reprints or reports about the Post article. Other sources that mention the book tend to be routine mentions for book signings and the like. So at the moment the page probably fails WP:GNG, and WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E also militate against keeping it. If the story develops further, or if other media start covering and reviewing the book, this could change. (Also note: assorted news stories from the New Orleans media note that Ronnie Seaton is part of the family that owns the famous Willie Mae's Scotch House—a New Orleans institution that doesn't yet have its own article but certainly could, given that it's received a James Beard Foundation "America's Classics" award—but I didn't see anything relating to that restaurant that would make a case for Ronnie Seaton's individual notability.) --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:55, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As to the book's accuracy, he (according to reports - I haven't read the book) cooks for the Queen at Buckingham Palace one Christmas. Which is a bit odd, seeing as the Royal Family are always at Sandringham over the Christmas holiday. I was interested to see a load of negative reviews on Amazon - proves that reviews there aren't all from the author's close family. Peridon (talk) 17:49, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Deleting. There are videos on YouTube of public service announcements, well pre-dating the book, where Mr. Seaton made these claims in the New Orleans area. Including ones aired on New Orleans television. Wikipedia is an excellent tool for identifying someone who has apparently committed fraud. Considering this individual has had indeed had their book published (by a small, but national publishing firm), it is worthwhile to have an article on him... either if his claims are vindicated (unlikely) or if he is further indicated. It is likely if the latter occurs, the publisher will sue, adding to the norerity. In either event, it is notable due to the national press attention his book's dubious claims have received - several press organizations have contacted the White House, following the NY Post coverage, and confirmed it. That leaves several original sources.Tabris06 (talk)
  • TL;DR - A person pulling something like this today is quite rare. And notable. And Wikipedia is the best place to quickly assess an individuals past public indiscretions. Passes CNG and NOTNEWS in my book, though the article could be moved/merged under the book - I would oppose that though based on his prior public claims to be a White House Chef, pre-publication of the book. Tabris06 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:43, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:36, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:36, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:36, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - There's nothing to suggest fully satisfying the applicable notability guidelines for this biography. SwisterTwister talk 08:35, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, but rewrite as Hoax This appears to be notable as a hoax. There are a growing number of stories about the book and its claims, including one which cites a press release by the publisher that they are stopping printing and distribution due to "some of the challenges made by the media." Harrison Daily, Christian Retailing, Daily Mail, etc. Articles about hoaxes can be notable. The article as written probably fails to stand up, but it could possibly be rewritten to focus on the hoax engendered by the book, "Sir White House Chef." An article containing that title would probably better serve the encyclopedia. This is especially true if the press coverage continues and becomes even more widespread. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 17:27, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - even if this guy has a ton of articles about him, they are all due to his alleged fraud, therefore WP:BIO1E would appear to apply. The book, on the other hand, because of the same issues, would most likely be notable, if the press is lasting. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:33, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that a hoax book can be notable, but as best I can determine (looking at GNews and other search results for <Ronnie Seaton "White House">), there was about a week's worth of press when the story of the hoax broke in early December, and since then nothing new in reliable sources. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:02, 29 December 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.