Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brad J. Lamb


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 20:00, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Brad J. Lamb

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

unremarkable businessman, nothing all that notable. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:59, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak delete - Subject is not significantly notable. "Weak" because there are a couple detailed pieces on him. Meatsgains (talk) 15:10, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep having your own TV show for three years should qualify. I've added a couple extra refs. - SimonP (talk) 15:19, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. He had his own TV show, sure; he's also had some significant coverage, and though one of the cited links is dead, the Toronto Star, which did a piece just on him, is the newspaper of general circulation in a pretty big city.  FalconK (talk) 10:22, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Additional sources have been added that I believe will refute Nomoskedasticity claims that Brad Lamb is an unremarkable businessman and back up Mr.Lamb's career accomplishments. His page has been the subject of malicious edits in the past. Please advise what else I can do to properly address this page deletion nomination. Thanks! SarahPeru (talk) 18:14, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

My additional sources were removed so I have re-added them into the body of the biography where I found them to be appropriate to back up my claims. Hope this closes this case on whether or not the write up is credible. If you have any additional ideas on how I can make this bio agreeable to those who contend it, I am all ears. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SarahPeru (talk • contribs) 14:38, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as the article in and of itself currently looks an advertisement, simply listing information about what there is to know about his career, none of it actually amounts to substance or anything meaningfully improvable therefore delete. SwisterTwister   talk  06:17, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:57, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:57, 4 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Rename to Big City Broker and refactor as an article primarily about the show rather than the person. Even after SarahPeru's efforts, the sourcing present here is still exclusively local to the city where he works, so I don't see a particularly strong claim to passing WP:GNG in his own right as a standalone WP:BLP. That said, however, the show would likely pass WP:NMEDIA — I'm not sure whether it aired on both the US and Canadian HGTVs or just the Canadian one, but it would have an NMEDIA pass as a nationally-televised series either way. So what makes the most sense to me here would be to create an article about the series, which can contain a brief biographical sketch of him as an individual since he was its main subject — but we don't need a full standalone article about him separately from that, because the sourcing here is not impressive, the article tilts in a decidedly advertorial rather than neutral direction, and entirely too much of the content here is still unsourced. Bearcat (talk) 20:33, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * keep though the idea of refactoring to be about the show is attractive. Plenty of sources and the "local" nature is not hugely relevant when the "locality" is a city of the size of Toronto (and isn't a deletion criteria in any case) Hobit (talk) 12:50, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, for the record, our inclusion standards for certain classes of topic do include a condition about the geographic range of the coverage — corporations and organizations in general, unelected candidates for political office, city councillors, restaurants and local radio and television personalities are just some examples of where GNG is not deemed to have been passed until the coverage either nationalizes far beyond the local media alone, or volumizes to a far greater amount of it than has actually been shown here. In general, the weaker the basic claim of notability is, the stronger the sourcing has to get before "media coverage exists" can become a notability claim in and of itself. And Toronto isn't exempted from that just because it's a larger city than most; Toronto media do still cover local people doing local things of no encyclopedic significance, like local restaurateurs and local radio DJs and local election candidates, so the fact that the local coverage is in the Toronto Star doesn't automatically count for more in and of itself than an otherwise equivalent topic in North Bay having his coverage restricted to the North Bay Nugget.
 * In this particular case, I remain convinced that the strongest claim of more-than-local notability, the TV show, would be better served by an article about the show than by a standalone BLP of him — the basis for a standalone article about him, separate from creating one about the show, is purely local significance of purely local sourceability. And, in fact, if we stripped all the unsourced advertorial here, all we'd really have left in the end for actual substance is "he exists and he was on a TV show, the end". Bearcat (talk) 19:34, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * My feedback on the general topic is that the GNG doesn't have anything about excluding local sources. As far as Toronto goes, the greater Toronto area has about the same population as Arizona and has at least 4 of the top 25 papers in Canada, not to mention a remarkable number of small-press papers covering select areas.  This would be more like the Arizona republic covering something in Tuscon than then North Bay Nugget covering something in North Bay.
 * On the issue of a reasonable outcome here, I think we'd be well within policy to keep the article (thus my keep) but editorially refactoring to create an article on the show isn't unreasonable. Hobit (talk) 19:48, 7 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep I think his show, media coverage, and status as a go-to "expert" on real estate for Canadian media adds up to notability - which extends beyond just his TV show. The article should be kept where it is, but seriously overhauled to make it less promotional. Fyddlestix (talk) 15:04, 7 October 2016 (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.