Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brandon Mendelson (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Bishonen &#124; talk 11:58, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Brandon Mendelson
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

One book which is not a best-seller is insufficient notability under WP:UTHOR, and there is nothing else. The ed. who created it has since been banned for using WP for advertisements,  DGG ( talk ) 00:32, 11 March 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete the level of coverage does not justify having an article on him.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:26, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep Just from references currently in the article, meets gng. CNN did a 9 paragraph piece on him . TimesUnion offers an in-depth .  Orlando Sentinel did another in-depth story . And there's more.  This nomination goes beyond failing to do WP:BEFORE, this is a ludicrous nomination.Jacona (talk) 19:17, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  J 947  00:39, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The CNN article is explicitly about Twitterers who are in the top 200, but not well known. We've previous had cases where claims to notability have been ased on references that say the subject is not notable; I consider that a peculiarly  over-literal use of the GNG. the other two are human interest personality pieces that are part of his publicity campaign. He travels around to get just such notices for his very worthy cause of cancer detection. The newspapers apparently want to help his cause by reprinting his publicity, but thats not the what an encyclopedia does.  DGG ( talk ) 18:47, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * When CNN does a 9 paragraph story on a "star you've never heard of", they are definitely building a case that you should have heard of them. It is definitely an assertion of notability. As far as the newspapers, it sounds like you don't like them.  They're still there. Jacona (talk) 20:46, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * should have heard of them is another of the synonyms for ought to be notable  DGG' ( talk ) 00:19, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  J 947  01:46, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:27, 25 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete -- overly promotional and the sourcing is not convincing for notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:17, 31 March 2017 (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.