Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brooke Saward

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 no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 11:24, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brooke Saward[edit]

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

Minor Australian travel writer. No real evidence of notability. Calton | Talk 03:15, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Minor" may be relevant, but why is "Australian" relevant to the AfD nomination? Aoziwe (talk) 11:53, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Brooke Saward has been featured on over 15 different magazines. She currently has over a million followers and has published a book. http://www.worldofwanderlust.com/press/ - The sources used for this article are credible and therefore, it deserves to be here. Haivanessa (talk) 16:51, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm helping Haivanessa with this page and I think it is a great start. It will no doubt improve but I think the sources are reliable and reputable and indicative that this is a noteworthy person. -Reagle (talk) 00:18, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You mean all those self-references are reliable? Really.

I've seen your class page. Aren't you -- or your TAs -- exercising any quality control? One of your student's pages has already been deleted as spam (Ferris Rafauli) and another misshaped draft (Draft:Analytical Thinking) wound up in article space for a day before you moved it back. With only a couple of exceptions, the articles are commercial listings, lightly dusted with self-references and passing mentions. And to answer Haivanessa's question, no, the mere act of publishing a book doesn't mean much, especially one that shows no indication of being notable. It's in 34 libraries, according to Worldcat; by contrast, a couple of my favorite not-best-selling travel books (Blood Washes Blood by Frank Viviano and The Silent Traveller in Paris by Yee Chiang) are in 457 and 297 libraries, respectively. Hell, a friend of mine wrote a dense academic tome on Caribbean literature, and despite its esoteric topic it's in 300 libraries. You need to do better, Mr. Reagle. --Calton | Talk 14:27, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 00:26, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article seems be part of formal work activity for a course of study, User:Reagle/Online Communities 2017-1-SP, so while it might not be notable, I think we need to mentor and guide as much as possible before people "just !vote". Aoziwe (talk) 11:53, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to introduce you to the concept of the draft space. --Calton | Talk 14:27, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if people think returning it to the Draft space for now is the best idea, please do so. -Reagle (talk) 19:27, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Waiting I am holding off forming an opinion on this one for the time being. It is very obviously an active work-in-progress. Aoziwe (talk) 12:06, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Haivanessa: An initial suggestion if I may: Using WONDERLUST as references would appear to be contrary to policy. If I understand it correctly, this is the article's subject's own web site, so at best is a primary site and should not be used. Wikipedia relies on secondary references. Please see WP:RS. Aoziwe (talk) 12:06, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which is something a professor teaching a class involving writing Wikipedia articles should be teaching. --Calton | Talk 14:27, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Aoziwe, thank you for your patience and helpful feedback. -Reagle (talk) 19:22, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify - In it's current incarnation, this is not suitable for mainspace, but a quick google news search turns up enough in-depth sourcing to show that the person is notable, such as this on Forbes, this from The Daily Mail, this from The Examiner, this from Nextshark, and another from The Daily Mail. And that's just on the first page of the search. My advice would be to take a look at WP:CIT on how to correctly format citations, as well, for example, this article is used, but the citation does not title the article correctly, nor give accreditation to its author, or give its date of publication. Also, the raw links (e.g. to Charlie's Dessert House) in the body of the article need to be removed, and using Saward's first name in after the initial introduction needs to be corrected. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:02, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:onel5969, thanks for the helpful suggestions! -Reagle (talk) 15:19, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned above, Brooke Saward is actually pretty notable, if you search her on Google she has been featured in many different credible publications. I agree the article needs a little editing (which I will do if you guys allow me), however, I do think the article does not need to be deleted. Haivanessa (talk) 01:05, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

She does appear to be barely notable, further coverage is available, but this was created as an advert. TNT. Delete and let someo ne neutral recreate. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:01, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

duffbeerforme, thank you for removing the "link spam." It is also best to Assume Good Faith when it comes to the intentions of editors and their contributions. For example, Haivanessa might be a newbie (which she is) rather than an non-neutral spammer. -Reagle (talk) 15:17, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has sources in independent, WP:RS and there is significant coverage of her apparent in further searches. Passes WP:GNG. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:34, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 04:42, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:00, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:57, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:59, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:59, 9 March 2017 (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.