Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Brazell


 * 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. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 14:29, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Robert Brazell

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing General notability guideline and the more detailed Notability (biographies) requirement. Sources primarily consist of mentions in passing and rewritten press-releases. Article created by a likely indisclosed paid editor, also has a history of copyvio and possible editing by the subject himself. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:50, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:01, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:01, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Weak keep Article needs total cleanup, some of the write-ups don't have references, like the number of children and the names and also where he lives lacks clear citation from secondary sources Mustapha dare (talk) 09:59, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * So what's your rationale for keep, seeing as you comment only on problems? :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 11:55, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * How about "partly because of the existence of "? Uncle G (talk) 09:04, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * So the best source for an American entrepreneur is Spanish newspaper article? The source is reliable, but notability requires more than one in-depth source, and this one is not very in-depth. The writers notes that it is hard to find much about this 'mysterious figure', and discusses the Overstock company. I don't think a single article in a reliable, but nonetheless niche outlet, is sufficient for establishing notability. With all due respect, I am at a similar level of notability since I was profiled in a Wikimedia Foundation blog  yet I don't think I should get an article yet :>--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  10:31, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Usually people differentiate between web logs and newspapers when it comes to reliability, so you are not really on a par. I agree that multiple is good, having been one of the major original advocates of it, but the problem was that your nomination rationale did not address the elephant in the room, which was definitely not "mentions in passing and rewritten press-releases". It's a non-trivial biography.  It names the person's wife, and discusses his children, hobbies, and parental background.  It's coverage in Spanish because this person bought a media group in Spain, of course. Several other Spanish language sources, including a book on PRISA  and, reference , which is not applicable for notability.  I mention it because it is clearly not the source for , and that one is not a re-hash of one Spanish interview.  Then there are the likes of  which is another, much earlier (and thus with far less to say, but equally more of a focus on early life), biography.  Again, we have background information including education and first job.  You are in fact definitely not on a par, unless newspapers have been publishing biographies of you across two decades, too.  &#9786; Uncle G (talk) 11:46, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Usually people differentiate between web logs and newspapers when it comes to reliability, so you are not really on a par. I agree that multiple is good, having been one of the major original advocates of it, but the problem was that your nomination rationale did not address the elephant in the room, which was definitely not "mentions in passing and rewritten press-releases". It's a non-trivial biography.  It names the person's wife, and discusses his children, hobbies, and parental background.  It's coverage in Spanish because this person bought a media group in Spain, of course. Several other Spanish language sources, including a book on PRISA  and, reference , which is not applicable for notability.  I mention it because it is clearly not the source for , and that one is not a re-hash of one Spanish interview.  Then there are the likes of  which is another, much earlier (and thus with far less to say, but equally more of a focus on early life), biography.  Again, we have background information including education and first job.  You are in fact definitely not on a par, unless newspapers have been publishing biographies of you across two decades, too.  &#9786; Uncle G (talk) 11:46, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui 雲 水 08:24, 19 September 2019 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 14:10, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. What's disturbing here is that some of the cited online references do not contain the information they are supposed to be supporting. (such as the second source cited which doesn't even mention the subject). This makes me question whether the veracity of the offline source can be assumed in good faith, if some of the sources online have nothing at all to do with the content they are supposed to verifying. The other online sources, other than the one spanish langauge source, are all tangential. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 14:13, 27 September 2019 (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.