Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laurence Brown (writer)


 * 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. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 05:04, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Laurence Brown (writer)
AfDs for this article: 


 * – ( View AfD View log  Brown (writer) Stats )

After cleaning up this article to remove sources that fail to meet third-party source criteria, I am convinced that there's nothing notable about this man. He has written books, but that is not sufficient evidence by itself of notability unless it can be shown that the books are notable. Neither he nor the books have been covered by third-party media or other sources not connected with him to the extent that notability is established. George Custer's Sabre 05:31, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Comment: Anyone contributing to this discussion would be far better advised to do based on this version of the article rather than the current one, from which the nominator removed every assertion of notability before first attempting to WP:PROD it and now bringing it to AfD. The nominator's justification for this removal was "Sorry but all of these sources are either commercial (ie Amazon) or sources associated with the author". While this justification would have been mostly valid (primary sources are sometimes acceptable for content, though not for notability) if the end result had been a viable and properly sourced article, this behaviour is completely inappropriate if, as in this case, the end result is a version of the article (effectively no content at all) even more likely to be deleted than the previous one (badly sourced content) - it is usually a far easier matter to determine if an article should be kept if there is existing content that can help one to look for better sources than have to rebuild the article from scratch. (And, as a final side-comment, given the reasons for removing the rest of the article, it is rather strange that the one remaining sentence is sourced to an Amazon subsidiary (Goodreads), and is in just the part of that site where the content is most likely to have come from the author or their publisher. PWilkinson (talk) 09:53, 29 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Please assume good faith my friend. The article was a puff piece based only on sources connected to the subject. On a BLP I have the right and responsibility to remove content that is poorly referenced. Check the BLP guidelines. They say: “Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.” That’s all I did. The key instruction I followed was this: “Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources.“ Best wishes, George Custer's Sabre 12:28, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete. So he’s published a few books. There hasn’t been significant third-party reporting on these. He is not notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.50.150.206 (talk) 14:32, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 13:26, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:10, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:10, 6 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. Writing books does not necessarily make someone notable. This man is not notable — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.50.149.61 (talk) 10:30, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment, this is funny, we now have two ip "deleters", one that has made a single edit above, and another who has made only a few, that said this person does not meet WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG so is a delete, WorldCat only lists The eighth scroll in 6 libraries, doesn't list any others, a gsearch does not bring up any useable reviews, just seller and blog sites. ps. it would be nice if nominator used tildes when signing:) Coolabahapple (talk) 10:45, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete total failure of the GNG. We need reliable sources especially for a living person, which are lacking.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:35, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete PROMO article on non-notable writer. Searches produce nothing useful, first hit  on my gNews search for his name + "Islam" was an essay by him  published by an English-language newspaper in Saudi. Older versions of article offer no support for notability and I can find none.  Fails WP:BASIC.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:34, 9 April 2018 (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.