Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terry Brown (martial arts instructor)

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 defaulting to Keep. Davewild (talk) 08:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Brown (martial arts instructor)[edit]

The book exists with a 72,000+ ranking at Amazon and they charge a sourcing fee, which means they don't have ready access and a search with his name and title don't turn up any notability. The company's website doesn't work (cache here) and searching for his name in connection with the company turns up 38 (it goes down from 150 when you get to p4) pages of nothing. He doesn't pass WP:BIO, nn instructor of a nn company. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 03:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as NN, one tenuous source dose not an article make --Nate1481(^t/_c) 10:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- Nate1481(^t/_c) 10:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Nate1481 RogueNinja_talk 10:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: http://www.wmaw.us/Instructors.htm#Terry_Brown The article looks like a copy of this web site. jmcw (talk) 13:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed it does, but since it's not verbatim I don't know that it qualifies under speedy. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 15:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not a copy & paste, it is the same info but in different words so as their talking about the same guy it's kind of inevitable, also this debate is looking towards deletion so may as well leave a boarder line case.--Nate1481(^t/_c) 15:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep author of a notable and well-reviewed [1],[2],[3] and recognized and quoted [4] book. Recognized expert [5] on a narrow subject. JJL (talk) 17:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Recognized expert on a narrow subject. The article could be improved with the citation mentioned here. jmcw (talk) 10:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JJL, the subject appears to be notable within his niche, verifiable through third party sources. (jarbarf) (talk) 21:51, 2 March 2008 (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.