Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laurence Brahm

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. -- Scott (talk) 21:49, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Laurence Brahm

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This page should be deleted because:

1) It breaks WP:NOT, specifically WP:PROMO. Specifically this article consists entirely of promotional material that was written by an apparently WP:COI editor (see article talk-page for more details).

2) The subject of the article is not notable per WP:BASIC, having not received WP:SIGCOV in independent, reliable sources. The only source provided in the article that is generally considered an RS is the New York Times, but this provides only a drive-by reference to him opening a hotel in Lhasa (i.e., not a notable activity, apparently WP:ROUTINE), and does not "addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content" as required by the policy. All other sources are self-published, self-written, or otherwise not independent.

3) My WP:BEFORE returned no results that were independent, reliable sources giving significant coverage. He has authored books, but these were under the Ibis Press imprint - not an established publisher - and no reviews in independent RSs came up. He has presented shows for Chinese state media but he was not really the subject of these (propaganda for the Chinese Communist Party was) and anyway the independence of the Chinese state media is highly dubious. FOARP (talk) 16:56, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:37, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:37, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:37, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am not going to state an opinion on whether to keep or delete this article. I have met Mr. Brahm on several occasions, which induces an inherit bias, and therefore stating an opinion on whether to keep or delete the article would be inherently biased. I would only like to say; that (a) I've reviewed the references that are on the article now, and concur with FOARP's assessment and (b) our view of his notability may very likely be polarized by viewing him through the prism of Western media, rather than Asian media. It's quite possible that to Chinese people he is quite notable. The prose of the article reads as promotional, but that's not a reason to delete; that can be cleaned up. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:21, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:17, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:49, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:PROMO and for lack of WP:SIGCOV, despite all the hype on the page, sourcing is almost entirely PRIMARY, many grand claims are unsourced, and I can't find anything much in searches, certainly nothing to support notability. Great photo, though. I wasted a lot of time loking, but came down exactly as Nom User:FOARP does.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:28, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's a lot of text here, but the article is unambiguous promo against the policy of the encyclopedia (WP:NOTPROMO), and once you peel away the layers of promotion the subject lacks the coverage needed to establish notability. Bakazaka (talk) 09:13, 9 January 2019 (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.