Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brendon Burchard

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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:56, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brendon Burchard

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

Insufficient independent reliable sources with significant discussion. Most used source is a Forbes blog (see here on sorting out the kinds of things you find at Forbes) - other refs cited are also laudatory in-bubble in the online marketing hype world. I did a google search ten pages out and it is just more of the same. There aren't sufficient independent, non-Woo! sources with which we can actually write a decent, neutral, encyclopedia article on this person; we just have a WP:PROMO piece now. Jytdog (talk) 23:07, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:14, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:14, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:26, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:42, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - the subject is a co-author of a Times bestseller, but many of the sources are primary and about those books, not significantly about the writer. Furthermore, many "bestsellers" are created thusly by bulk purchases so we are usually wary of basing notability merely on book sales alone. It is almost badly written enough to delete based on that reason alone. This article is infelicitous in its wording; parts are specious and other sections are merely bombastic. If this is an autobiography, his books must be unreadable. Bearian (talk) 18:55, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 23:53, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 10:29, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. author or even coauthor of a NYT bestseller is 1notability . Authors are notable for the books they write, and references or lack of references on their persona life is irrelevant. DGG ( talk ) 08:53, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:DGG surprising. There is a whole world of hypers like this. See The Syndicate (business group) - we succeeded by the skin our teeth to get the articles on the individuals in that hype-circle condensed to that. This guy is just more of the same. Online hype. But what matters are good refs with substantial discussion; we don't have them on this person. Jytdog (talk) 08:59, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am generally very skeptical about people in this field. But when they write best-selling books, they become notable authors, and we have to cover them. The principle is NPOV. DGG ( talk ) 15:46, 14 November 2016 (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.