Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Travis Bradberry

:{{la|Travis Bradberry}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Travis_Bradberry Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Travis Bradberry}})

Paid editor are making the contribution. Similar to Keith Ferrazzi . making wiki spam host for such people. This seems unnecessary and merely personal promotional articles. there are press coverage, but not because person is really encyclopedic significant. Wikipedia considered as Blog host in this case. Light2021 (talk) 20:32, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

• Delete I can't find any WP:SIGCOV of this guy. He seems to have written a lot of articles, some in major publications, but none seem to be about himself as a person. - GretLomborg (talk) 21:38, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
• Keep Bradberry is a lot like Keith Ferrazzi - his main notability is for having a NY Times best seller (in Bradberry's case Emotional Intelligence 2.0), which he parlayed into a consulting career with speaking engagements and many published articles that are shared throughout social media. The concept of emotional intelligence in business is a category that he created. I don't know the rule of thumb for author notability, but I do know that Harper Lee and JD Salinger were considered notable after one book. I'm certainly not comparing their societal impact, but you can Google Travis Bradberry in quotes and get almost 2.5 million hits. Harper Lee gets you 433K. Bradberry's book has almost 1,000 reviews on Amazon and is still ranked in the top ten in several business categories, after almost exactly 8 years, and is currently Amazon's #262 book overall. I just spent a half hour looking for good sources of media coverage, and found a lot of podcasts and panel appearances. I'll keep looking when I have more time. I may put in a section about his activities as a speaker and panelist, and source it with links to the more well-known forums and shows he's appeared at. Timtempleton (talk) 00:53, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
• Comment I think the difference is that Harper Lee and JD Salinger have received significant coverage as individuals (e.g. biography and profiles). I think you make a good case for the notability of Bradberry's book but not Bradberry himself. - GretLomborg (talk) 12:51, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

:: That is the crux of the discussion. My argument in support of his notability is for the work he's done to promote the concept rather than just publishing the book and waiting for people to read it. He would not have the search visibility if he was a recluse like Harper Lee and JD Salinger. If we're going to keep the article the challenge will be quantifying that effect which I will take a shot at and hopefully move the needle a little bit. . Timtempleton (talk) 16:00, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

:::: He's not notable because I see no evidence of a WP:RS saying to itself "people need to know more about Travis Bradberry, the person!" and then writing an article with WP:DEPTH. What I see is a popular book and a lot of articles with his byline. - GretLomborg (talk) 21:39, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

:::::I think rather than try to make a case for notability by adding info about being a public speaker, which I think would be considered promotionalism to casual readers, I added a sentence in the lede about his authorship of articles for online magazines. Still a bit promotional, but I think it makes a better case now for notability. I also see some minor coverage that I missed before - will add. Timtempleton (talk) 00:57, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

:::::: I just added a couple of more items of media coverage independent of the book. You have to google his name and the title of the publication since there are so many links for his speaking and blogging. His bio says he was covered in the Wall Street Journal but I don't subscribe. If anyone reading this does, can they Google him there? Timtempleton (talk) 16:42, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:00, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:01, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:01, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

• Delete & optionally redirect name to Emotional Intelligence 2.0. The article is highly promotional, while the subject is not notable outside of the book. Wikipedia does not need two articles on these closely related topics. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:28, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

::The redirect wouldn't work in this case because of the emotional IQ assessment, which was the new info I found and added. It's independent of the book. But I just went to his Amazon page and saw that he's written four other books. https://www.amazon.com/Travis-Bradberry/e/B001H6N83M/ref=dp_byline_cont_book_1# I'll add them to the article. Timtempleton (talk) 20:45, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

:::Delete then. Overly promotional and no value to the project. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:18, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

• Delete. probably as speedy G11. Regardless of notability, which is a guideline and subject to valid disputes about interpretation, NOT ADVOCACY is a basic principle, and articles whose purpose and effect is advocacy must be removed. Otherwise, NPOV fails, and we are no longer an encyclopedia , and we might as well let Amazon handle our coverage of authors and books. I can find no direct evidence Bradbury's principal book was ever on the NYT list--and I am not sure I would accept the self-help section of that list as a criterion for notability . The book is self published. I have just listed Bradberry's book Emotional Intelligence 2.0 for speedy G11; and another admin has already deleted it DGG ( talk ) 05:39, 4 July 2017 (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.