Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baylus C. Brooks


 * 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. Enigmamsg 16:13, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Baylus C. Brooks

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article is essentially a coatrack for promoting the subject's pop history books. There is no indication that the author himself meets WP:PROF, WP:NAUTHOR or the WP:GNG. The only sources I could find are promotional materials from his publishers and the odd review in non-RSes. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 11:17, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 11:17, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 11:17, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 11:17, 3 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I would support deletion as earlier I nominated this for A7 speedy delete, and it was deleted that way, as well as copyright infringement. Since then it was recreated. Though I must admit this author got his name in a newspaper along with celebratory cleavage gossip. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:04, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Baylus Brooks offered a valuable contribution to history with his discoveries of the Thache family records on Jamaica. He published these in a professional Journal and is endorsed by the UNC press as well as the North Carolina Department of cultural resources. "Pop history" is not published by the North Carolina Historical Review. Also the article I believe has been sufficiently reworded from the original source. See:https://www.uncpress.org/book/9780865264793/blackbeard-reconsidered/ SC9370176CEC (talk) 13:40, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Nobody is maligning Brooks' contributions to either scholarship or popular history, . Our concept of notability is based purely on whether a person has received significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Unfortunately that doesn't seem to be the case here.
 * The section I removed and revdel'd earlier today most definitely was a copyright violation. You can't just reword published sources; close paraphrasing is still plagiarism. About 50% of the text was also a word-for-word copy. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 13:55, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * My apologies Joe. My feelings were that Brooks deserved mention for changing the narrative on Blackbeard. My Hope Is that others will feel it this way as well. If it helps:http://www.stroudnewsandjournal.co.uk/news/15010736.New_research_shows_family_of_notorious_pirate_Blackbeard_came_from_Stonehouse/ and http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3373461/Was-Blackbeard-GENTLEMAN-Historical-records-feared-pirate-actually-aristocratic-family-man-gave-wealth-help-brother-sister.html SC9370176CEC (talk) 14:06, 3 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete per nomination. Subject fails WP:AUTHOR. -The Gnome (talk) 15:27, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. Doesn't pass NAUTHOR or GNG. PROMO and FRIGNE concerns.Icewhiz (talk) 07:51, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Nothing here to indicate notability; he may deserve mention for his discovery, but that can be done in the article on Blackbeard.TheLongTone (talk) 11:15, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete -- Making a modest discovery about a notable person is not sufficient to confer notability. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:18, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. While the work on Thatche is interesting, he himself does not seem to me to meet notability requirements. However it would be appropriate to mention him in the Blackbeard article and some text from here could be perhaps moved to it. Dunarc (talk) 22:46, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete overly promotional article. We start off with "may have" and as you move along you realize this is a strong may. THen we have the truly horrid prose of "almsot every author usually wrote", which is two conditionals which means you are saying nothing of worth. Scholarly articles are a dime a dozen. My cousin, who is a history professor, has had two books published, but I can most clearly tell you she is not yet notable, she may be some day, but that day is well in the future.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:26, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - Fails WP:GNG. --  Dane talk  03:36, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete pile on.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:39, 7 June 2018 (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.