Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bevans Branham


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 01:02, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Bevans Branham

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:BIO. No significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources, and references cited so far are local news that only mention him in passing. Bevans branham and Bevans Branham were speedied three times as spam on 5/6 Oct., and this less spammy re-write by the same author isn't asserting notability. Darth Sitges (talk) 15:14, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Darth Sitges (talk) 15:15, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Darth Sitges (talk) 15:15, 24 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - Clearly a promotional page with no independent sources to back up the only tenuous claim to notability. Harry the Dog WOOF  15:17, 24 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I argue that the subject meets criteria for notability for two reasons. One, according to the notability guidlines the subject has to have, "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" which is met based on the sources cited in the article.  Two, Branham's involvement with the San Jose (which is bolstered by this stock certificate and article) might be his most notable achievement, but it is not his only one meaning that the article should not be merged under ONEEVENT.  I make this claim due to the fact that most of the articles about Branham are in regard to his restaurants. TrevorElwell (talk) 15:34, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * A scan of a "stock certificate" (which may or may not be genuine) and a comment on a blog post by the same person are hardly reliable sources. Harry the Dog WOOF  16:01, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Is there a better way for me to confirm the veracity of a legal document that exists in physical form and is, in fact, genuine?TrevorElwell (talk) 16:10, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Two shares in someone else's name = major funder? Even if genuine it doesn't cut it. Harry the Dog WOOF  16:24, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * His full name, "William Evans Branham", is in the first sentence of the article does match up with the name on the certificate which is "William E. Branham II" albeit with an abbreviated middle initial and his suffix. I will not argue that two shares might not be that much, but I will make the following two arguments.  One: we are both unaware of how many shares in total there are- it could be 4, it could be 20000.  Therefore my second argument: an acceptable compromise would be to remove the word "major" from the term "major funder" but it is evident and verifiable that he was involved in funding the expedition and is thus, notable.TrevorElwell (talk) 16:41, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * If he had any involvement (let alone major involvement) in such an enterprise there would be loads of reliable sources indicating that. All you have given us is self-published sources. His other activities make him no more notable than any other run-of-the-mill businessman. Harry the Dog WOOF  07:52, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I know you guys are the experts, this is my first article and based on this deletion talk page existing it's not going so well. I'm trying to figure out the best way to make this work since when this particular event occurred it was not heavily publicized and the stuff that was publicized was not published online, that's why the information that I've provided is self-republished (they were originally published, I just put them online).  I'm not trying to game the system I'm just trying to make this work. TrevorElwell (talk) 13:46, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not going to work because he just isn't notable at this stage. That really is the bottom line. The ship and the battle are notable, and they already have pages. Branham is not. Harry the Dog WOOF  13:57, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I still believe that the subject is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article but the current state of the article is in shambles after all of the content was removed. I'd appreciate it if we could reach a decision sooner rather than later. Thank you, TrevorElwell (talk) 16:39, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:AFD discussions normally run for about a week, but this one has received little input from other editors, so it may be extended by an administrator so some sort of WP:Consensus might be gained. Darth Sitges (talk) 09:08, 29 October 2012 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 00:22, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 17:24, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley   Huntley  01:01, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

 Can we please reach a decision on this? TrevorElwell (talk) 19:15, 19 November 2012 (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.