Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rebecca Brown (missionary)


 * 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. Even for "waay known" people, our notability guidelines require substantial coverage in independent reliable sources, which the "keep" opinions don't address.  Sandstein  15:33, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Rebecca Brown (missionary)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No real sources, or indication of notability Jac 16888  Talk 20:44, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep A google search indicates notability. I will comment that this lady seems to attract attention for the wrong reasons but nonetheless it does make her notable. Independent sources are also available. Aside from this her 3 books have been widely read and seem to give her further notability. Admittedly the article is pretty poor. In any case I intend to add sources and to expand it. For now my vote is keep as the subject reaches the notability threshold and I will be improving this article. Thank you Trout71 (talk) 21:41, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I can only find blogs and such that refer to this person, nothing of any substance such as news articles -- Jac 16888 Talk 22:43, 22 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep Rebecca Brown is waay known in protestant community. She's widely known in many countries for her Spiritual Warfare books. At Amazon.com she's tagged as #1 Top Seller in Satanism and Demonology subject and have more than 400 customers reviews and this is just one of her books. At Skoob, a great social network for book readers, Rebecca Brown only retrieves Rebecca Brown (missionary) books, and no Rebecca Brown (author) books, which at least show that Rebecca (missionary) has more notability than the other Rebecca (author) (which has enough notability to have an article). Also I wonder why Jac16888 wants so much and puts so much effort to have this article deleted. His actions should be assessed as he is hindering growth and community development, flagging many articles to be deleted under "no notability" excuse. Also, according to WP:FAILN: For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort. So, even if this article had unclear notability, (which is not the case as Jac16888 not knowing the author does not indicate that she has not notabilit) tagging it for deletation should be a last resort. Czarverve (talk) 19:21, 22 April 2015 (GMT -3)
 * Book reviews and social media listings are of zero value to demonstrate notability, what is needed and what this article does not have is the presence of multiple reliable 3rd party references, nor do any seem to be available. If you think this article should not be deleted, please provide some-- Jac 16888 Talk 22:43, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * What about these sources: http://www.pfo.org/curse-th.htm

http://www.scielo.br/pdf/rbcsoc/v21n61/a06v2161.pdf http://answers.org/satan/brown.html http://www.culthelp.info/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=1091 Czarverve (talk) 23:33, 22 April 2015 (GMT -3)
 * Those sources all seem really close to the source. not much in the way of secondary. Bryce Carmony (talk) 02:54, 23 April 2015 (UTC)


 * There are even more entries: http://www.internationalbulletin.org/issues/2015-01/2015-01-023-asamoah-gyadu.pdf

http://www.ntskeptics.org/1998/1998october/october1998.htm http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/ref-rev/04-1/4-1-detzler.pdf http://www.pfo.org/VL25-NO3.PDF Czarverve (talk) 00:02, 23 April 2015 (GMT -3)


 * Delete Rebecca Brown lacks notability to be included in an enyclapedia. Verifiable secondary sources came up short but I did take the liberty of creating an article at WikiPeeps which would be more appropriate given the lack of notability. I'm open minded if someone can find sources that I was unable to I can revisit my suggestion. Bryce Carmony (talk) 02:03, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. I had initially mistaken her for Rebecca Brown (author), but then realized the mistake and corrected that. A search for the books attributed to this specific brown does not bring up anything to show that she would pass notability guidelines. The problem here is that she's ultimately a WP:FRINGE author and while it's not impossible for a fringe author to gain notability, it does make it a lot harder for her to gain coverage in places that Wikipedia would consider reliable. Most of the places Brown would gain coverage would be considered fringe websites with little to no editorial oversight that would make them usable per Wikipedia's guidelines. Now addressing the topic of reviews, some reviews are usable to show notability but they would have to be reviews in outlets that Wikipedia considers reliable like the Chicago Tribune. Reviews in social media outlets like Goodreads or Skoob will not count since anyone can write a review on that site and at best it only indicates popularity, which can make it more likely that there will be coverage but is not a guarantee that it will be out there. (WP:ITSPOPULAR) It also doesn't help that the original version of the article contained a WP:BLP violation by mentioning Brown's malpractice problems without backing it up with a RS or showing where it should be in the article. If there were sources out there that would pass WP:RS then I'd argue for a keep, but they just don't seem to exist in this instance, which is pretty common when you have AfDs for authors that don't write mainstream fare. It's a shame, but the standards for author notability on Wikipedia is very, very strict. There is a move to try to get bestseller lists recognized as a standard for author notability, but that would apply to bestseller lists like the New York Times' Bestseller List. The problem with merchant sites like Amazon is that it's already been shown that ranking numbers on merchant sites can be manipulated and that it's also fairly easy to get a top spot when the categories get increasingly more specific. I'm sorry, but Brown just doesn't pass notability guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  05:17, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 23 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment -- She appears to have managed to keep her books in print for a signifciant period. Getting them translated inot other languages may again point to notability, but I am nevertheless dubious of her notability.  the websites linked do not inspire me with confidence of her notability.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:51, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak delete - I'm protestant, and I've never heard of her or her books. There are no reliable sources such as reviews in the Times book Review or even ecclesiastical papers. The only reason I'm giving her the benefit of the doubt is her social media presence, but even that can be manipulated. Bearian (talk) 20:01, 29 April 2015 (UTC) P.S. The 'Biblical studies' .pdf could not open in my browser. Bearian (talk) 20:03, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - A quick spin on the Google isn't turning up anything pointing to a GNG keep. Carrite (talk) 02:46, 30 April 2015 (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.