Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gary Braver


 * 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 no consensus. Frankly TNT seems like a good idea, but I can't find consensus for that option. I find no other consensus. As "no consensus" is de-facto keep, those who have made the "keep" argument are cordially invited to perform some much-needed pruning and verification. If this does not happen, I would recommend this be re-nominated after a period of time (say, two months?), as there is consensus that the article in its current state is not healthy for our encyclopedia. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 02:12, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Gary Braver

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Everything is unsourced and not suitable for Wikipedia. Ilhamnobi (talk) 06:59, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete: Written like a fawning fan page, or advertisement for this fellow. References are primary. Not helpful. --Whiteguru (talk) 09:22, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:39, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Editors claiming to have found sources would do better to link them or provide an account of them. The article being poorly written ("fawning fan page") is not an argument for deleting unless this is so bad that it should have been speedy deleted.
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2021 August 25.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 22:08, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. I doubt I'll be reading any of his books anytime soon, but he's written a fair number for which I could easily find (non-puff) reviews via Google. He seems to be a (minor) award winner and it looks like he's notable in his area. RomanSpa (talk) 12:18, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: do you know it's BLP and unsourced? See WP:BLPSOURCES. —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 03:28, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete I'm not seeing a ton of reliable reviews in my search. The lack of sourcing and history of promotional tone/autobiographical interference issues also makes me think that even if sourcing is presented that show WP:GNG/WP:NAUTHOR are met, deleting per WP:TNT and then starting over again in the draftspace may be the best course of action. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:44, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:05, 2 September 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Weak keep Gut if keep. Unsourced puffery, but his books do have a few (not very complimentary in general) reviews, e.g., https://www.kirkusreviews.com/author/gary-braver/. I tried tracking down the Massachusetts award but can't find a reliable source. Searching for "Massachusetts Honor Book Award for Fiction" mainly gets his book, so I wonder what's really going on with the award.-- rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 18:59, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak keep His last book was noticed and has reviews. -GorgonaJS (talk) 11:46, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   08:02, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep While the article has no reliable sources this author has published a number of books with a large press, namely Macmillan. A quick search turned up sources which could be added to the article. So while the article does need a ton of work, it's a keep for me.--SouthernNights (talk) 13:10, 12 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment. I did find one quality ref. See below.4meter4 (talk) 20:48, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Book review of Choose Me

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Bold third relist as editors claim WP:SOURCESEXIST but haven't linked them. Pinging and.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:05, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Comes up with quite a few hits in Gnews, some more tangential than others, has a few mentions of books published by him. Oaktree b (talk) 00:24, 21 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. I smell a COI. Article is unsourced for the vast majority of it. Waddles 🗩</b> <b style="color:white">🖉</b> 18:37, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - Per the two reviews identified above, and the profile already cited. Agree with commenters above that the article needs to be gutted and reduced to a stub. Suriname0 (talk) 23:51, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete, invoking WP:TNT. I think consensus is clear the article, as it stands, makes insufficient claims to notability and smells of COI and/or paid editing. Ifnord (talk) 01:26, 29 September 2021 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.