Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brave New Books

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. Jenks24 (talk) 10:50, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brave_New_Books[edit]

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

looks more like an advertisement than an encyclopedia entry. Soosim (talk) 10:12, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I had to gut most of the article, so anyone coming into the AfD needs to take a look at the article history if they want to see the original sources. The long and short of the sources that were on the article is that none of them were usable as RS to show notability for the bookstore. There are routine mentions of signings (which don't give notability), links to various unusable conspiracy sites, and even a link to a google search. There was a section on the John Lott signing being moved to the bookstore after a shooting, but almost none of the sources in that section mentioned the store and the ones that did only mentioned it briefly as a "oh, it got moved here" afterthought. Other than that, the sources were pretty much primary ones. Nothing usable and the only one I kept was one that mentioned it was listed as a patriot group by the SPLC, which in itself doesn't extend notability. It's a trivial source, nothing else. I removed large sections, which included a lot of non-NPOV and peacock language. I'll see what I can find, but nothing from the previous incarnations of the article were usable to show notability.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:41, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I did a rather extensive search and while this is slightly more notable than your average indie bookstore, it's not notable enough for a Wikipedia article. I found only two sources that could be used on the article. One is a CNN video while the other is a brief blurb about the store facing tax issues, and this isn't enough to show notability for the store. I have no issue with anyone userfying the article, but it's simply not notable at this point in time.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:56, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - thank you TG for working on it. and yes, your work only proved my point regarding the nomination for deletion! i just didn't want anyone wasting more time on it (since i had already done searches hither and yon). so, please delete..... Soosim (talk) 07:00, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The CNN interview is with Catherine Bleish of the Liberty Restoration Project, she has no connection to the store other than they agreed to hold the interview there. The store owner is Harlan Dietrich who has a fair number of Google hits including a quote in the NYT (pre-store)[1] so maybe if someone wanted to try and write an article about Dietrich using reliable sources like the New York Times, the store could be included in that article, though I think it will be a stretch to find enough reliable sources for Dietrich. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:07, 26 October 2012 (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.