Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Josh Drean
: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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. – robertsky (talk) 10:23, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
=[[:Josh Drean]]=
:{{la|1=Josh Drean}} – (
:({{Find sources AFD|title=Josh Drean}})
Excluding primary sources and unreliable sources, there doesn't seem to be anything that meets GNG or NAUTHOR. BuySomeApples (talk) 05:57, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Massachusetts, and Utah. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:26, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
- Delete: Utterly promotional, quite aside from that the subject doesn't meet the GNG, this reads like a sales brochure. Some of the creator's other articles look rather the same, and a question as to whether this is a paid editor comes to mind. Ravenswing 07:59, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
- Delete. I found one (very negative) book review in [https://www.publishersweekly.com/9781647826420 Publishers Weekly] but nothing else. Can't see any indication of a WP:GNG or WP:NAUTHOR pass. MCE89 (talk) 16:31, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
:Delete - pretty much an advertisement that fails GNG. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 16:44, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
- Weak delete - there is some precedent that bad reviews can contribute to notability. I only see one reliable review in a pile of what's close to TNT territory. Bearian (talk) 22:57, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
{{clear}}
: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.