Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brad Gosse

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. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:53, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Gosse[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This subject is on the borderline, but I'm inclined to think that WP:BIO isn't met. There are sources that provide in-depth coverage, but they are of a low quality - mainly XBIZ and a low circulation local paper. I've search in factiva and google books to try and find something better, but could only find brief mentions. Really, this discussion is about whether the coverage in XBIZ is sufficient for inclusion. SmartSE (talk) 21:23, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't have a problem with XBIZ if it was one source within a diversity of substantive references — but if it's the only substantial source that can be added, then no, it's not good enough by itself. In addition, the claim that his book was a bestseller on Amazon.com is entirely unsourced — and even if it's true, having a bestselling book is only a valid claim of notability on here if the book reached a general bestseller list (such as in The New York Times or The Globe and Mail), and not if the claim is exclusive to a single book retailer. No prejudice against future recreation if a better version of the article, with a better range of sources, can be written at a later date — but this version isn't good enough to be anything but a delete. Bearcat (talk) 17:12, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.