Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jae Bryson


 * 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. Consensus is subject is not notable per guidelines. COI has no role in this as it could be overcome if the subject were notable. StarM 12:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Jae Bryson

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable author. Only 820 google hits, which is low for an author, and doesn't seem to meet any of the notability criteria for authors (Notability (people)). Prodego talk  17:37, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete The article is mostly about books he did not write, or has not yet written. One book only, a very mild success 129 copies in WorldCat libraries. DGG (talk) 19:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Only reliable nontrivial independent source I saw was a local media mention of him participating in a local business, which doen't rate an encyclopedia article. DreamGuy (talk) 20:09, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - notability is not established, and while the number of Ghits is low, the number of GNews archive hits is way lower at 14. To me, that is more an indicator of lack of notability. Lack of Google hits doesn't deny notability, although it often correlates; but if there are few or no GNews hits, it indicates that there are few or no articles in independent, reliable sources that constitute coverage of the topic or individual. Even if there were tens of thousands of hits in Google, the real scarcity of independent hits in news archives shows lack of suitability. Also, only four hits in GBooks, and only one of them is a book written by Bryson. (Not intending to use a reverse-WP:OSE point, but we did speedy the article for Chuck Hustmyre just a few months ago and he has authored at least five books.) Frank  |  talk  21:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - only one book published. Does not meet threshold of WP:CREATIVEUnionsoap (talk) 14:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment – Mild success, huh? So, what is the threshold number of google hits for an author? What is the threshold number of books written -- that are published by a major publishing house? Is there a directive NOT to mention projects that didn't come to fruition? And, how many other published authors' entries are being considered for deletion today? Honestly, thank God for Uncyclopedia. I am appalled at the arrogant and pedantic nature of the so-called Wiki contributors. Though I was warned it would be a nightmare dealing with this group, I ignored those warnings.Brrryce (talk) 16:52, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is about notability, not "everything and everyone that ever existed". Perhaps the reason you were "warned it would be a nightmare" is because when people try to add articles about themselves and/or people they are close to, it often causes hard feelings. That's because if a topic is notable, usually someone else will create an article about it. If nobody else has done so...that in itself is a decent indicator that sufficient notability simply isn't there.
 * This is a discussion. If notability can be shown, then the proper course of action here is to simply show it. Many times these discussions seem to be going one way and then turn around when enough people find enough information to support a different conclusion. Frank  |  talk  17:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, thank God for Uncyclopedia, where people like you can go with your tomfoolery and leave the people who want to build an encyclopedia alone. Why don't you do that instead of wasting everyone's time with frivolous admin recalls? JuJube (talk) 02:04, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a comment best left on a different page, JuJube, not on an unrelated AfD, as it does not help. --64.85.217.174 (talk) 13:35, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong delete – notability not established. Article seems to plainly be a vanity piece (which is ironic via the comment regarding the "arrogant and pedantic Wiki-contributors" comment). MuZemike 18:51, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete - non-notable vanity piece. Rklawton (talk) 19:53, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per Frank. Notability not established; article lists one book he wrote, one he contributed to. Does not meet WP:CREATIVE. JohnCD (talk) 19:55, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, doesn't meet notability criteria, also written by subject (see WP:COI). NawlinWiki (talk) 20:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak delete Appears to fail WP:BIO and WP:N due to a lack of significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources. The book which was "as told to" him by the two football players, got several reviews, but probably not enough notability for its own article. Bryson himself got a bit of coverage in the Minneapolis/St Paul papers as publisher of his local "One Nation" newspaper. Edison (talk) 21:29, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Question I know this may be pure coincidence but is User:Brrryce related to Jae Bryson in some way? Knowing one way or the other would strongly inform my decision. - Dravecky (talk) 22:36, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * A: They are related, have a look here where Brrryce filed a admin recall against User:MBisanz. In the filer section he identifies himself as Jae Bryson. Oli OR Pyfan! 00:46, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This discussion should be about the article, period. WP:COI is not a reason to delete an article. Frank  |  talk  00:52, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:COI alone may not be a good reason, but it does cast a light on any possible POV, promotion or spin. It could also suggest a WP:SPA or WP:POINT when combined with the editor's other contributions. So it is definitely a valid concern for this AfD. --64.85.217.174 (talk) 13:45, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, COI isn't a reason to delete, and it really isn't useful in this discussion. That the article is almost certainly written by its subject is not really in doubt, but it is also not relevant. If the subject is notable, we can take care of COI later. If not, we delete, and then COI doesn't matter. That's the only thing this discussion is about. As for WP:SPA, again - it doesn't apply; the question is notability. And WP:POINT most certainly has no place in this discussion; nobody is disrupting the project to make any points here. The process is running its normal course. Frank  |  talk  14:29, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete certainly not notable enough for its own Wikipedia article. Really ought to be speedy deleted under criterion A7... Oli OR Pyfan! 00:39, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete per Pyfan. JuJube (talk) 02:04, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete as while his book was negatively reviewed by USA Today, he drew some attention for reporting on the I-35 bridge collapse, and he ran for office in Minneapolis so verifiability might be achieved but it just doesn't quite reach the notability threshold. The COI issue does erode some of the good faith I would normally assume here but the simple fact is the subject is currently insufficiently notable. - Dravecky (talk) 02:04, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - At least he had the good sense to escape from Davenport, Iowa. That ought to be worth something. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 08:27, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey now, Davenport is my second-favorite of the Quad Cities (I'll always love you more, Rock Island, Illinois!) and there's no call for snark in the AfD process. - Dravecky (talk) 09:01, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, the Rock Island Line, she's a mighty good road... Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 09:08, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete No notability demonstrated. Chillum  15:46, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Did not demonstrate notability. -Pax85 (talk) 07:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I don't care about the Google hits, but I can't see the evidence of notability we normally seek: multiple non-trivial references in reliable sources. In the absence of this verification, deletion is the only option. --Dweller (talk) 11:27, 9 March 2009 (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.