Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brooks Kubik (second nomination)

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 of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. This is difficult, as the book does appear to be self-published and we routinely delete such works unless they are exceptional (usually self-publication indicates some problem persuading anyone else to publish it). However, the AfD for the book itself is not going to be a delete (I shall close it momentarily unless beaten to it) and this one is rather much on the edge of where we begin to consider deletion, particularly taking into account the preceding PROD/etc. So I think perhaps what should happen is a simple redirect to the book, which I will go and apply. This is an editorial decision, however, so it is reversible. -Splash^talk 20:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brooks Kubik

This article was restored by DRV consensus, following a determination that the previous AfD failed to consider all relevant information. Please see the DRV discussion for a number of significant points of information raised about the article's subject. This is a procedural relisting, so I abstain. Xoloz 17:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

• Weak delete The closest thing to a truly verifiable claim of notability is his published book. Its Amazon listing shows the publisher as Brooks D. Kubik himself, and the one and only used copy available is listed at almost a hundred bucks, suggesting that the print run was likely quite small. I've looked up self-published stuff on Amazon before and I'm often astonished by how many used copies there are. Although I'd be happy to be convinced otherwise, this looks like a self-published work with a very small print run, and so I vote to delete. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Starblind and because I can't find any true notability. Also, if this is up for deletion then Dinosaur Training must also be up for AfD, as the entire article is about Kubik. -- Kicking222 19:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. -- FRCP11 13:09, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Starblind. Dr Zak 13:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Though self-published as far as I know, the book is (still) fairly widely available from multiple sources on the web. For example: [1], [2], [3]. There are also a number of reviews of the book available on-line for those who look for them. Besides the book, Kubik has also been a regular contributor to several strength training publications (Hardgainer, Milo, Iron Master). Dsreyn 00:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep per Dsreyn. Mr. Kubik does seem to be somewhat known in strength building circles as far as I can tell. I'm afraid of deleting him simply because he doesn't appear notable to people not in the field. His book and contributions to strength training publications ot me makes him pessibly worth keeping. But frankly, I'd feel more confortable if some weight training folks were voting on this. --Lendorien 01:54, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - I'm not sure exactly what kind of "weight training folks" you're looking for, but I count as one if you mean someone who's a serious weight trainer and reads some of the magazines (subscribe to Milo, subscribed to Hardgainer until it stopped publishing). Dsreyn 02:28, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, what's the last time "Milo" had an article about Dinosaur Training in it, and what did it have to say about it? That's the sort of thing I'm getting at. Ditto the other magazines. Which magazines have him on the masthead as contributing editor? Dpbsmith (talk) 10:00, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as not meeting the WP:BIO guidelines. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dinosaur Training for some miscellaneous Googling. I personally gave Dinosaur Training itself a very weak "keep" vote, because Ironman magazine published a book on strength training with a substantial chapter by Kubik on dinosaur training, but one chapter in a print book by a "real" publisher plus one self-published out-of-print book does not add up to a notable author, and a handful of brief mentions by other strength training authors does not, IMHO, make him notable either. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep: There is no valid reason to delete this article. The man is a widely enough published author, and has a following and affiliation with other authors and fitness websites on the internet. The sources of information are irrelevant, all claims are made reflecting the claims made by Kubik as opinion or statements of his practise by him, and not as facts. Furthermore, this is an article meant for expansion, and should be kept up for that purpose. All of you change your votes, they're ridiculous. Tyciol 21:29, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete; in my estimation fails WP:BIO. A few articles and a self-published book, in the absence of wide public notice, do not constitute notability. MCB 01:02, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I think the following from Wikipedia:Importance is worth keeping in mind while voting:

An article is "important" enough to be included in Wikipedia if any one of the following is true:

1. There is evidence that a reasonable number of people are, were or might be concurrently interested in the subject (eg. it is at least well-known in a community).

Kubik may not have general appeal to the masses, but he is definitely well-known and of interest to those in the weight-training community. Seems like there's something wrong when there's room for an article on Mr. Methane but not a legitimate, well-published writer like Kubik. fbb_fan 00:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think a self-published book and a few magazine articles constitute a "well-published" author. Anyone can write and pay for a book to be printed up; there is no evidence that it ever sold any copies at all. The three magazines in which he is supposed to have published articles are not particularly well-known; I've never seen them at a newsstand or bookstore, even those that carry all sorts of body-building and fitness magazines. MCB 02:12, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

It's more than "a few magazine articles". He was a regular columnist (as in, every issue had an article by him) for Hardgainer for several years, before he broke away to start his own newsletter, and was also a regular columnist for Iron Master. I agree that these are not common newsstand magazines; that does not mean that they are unknown in the community (incidentally, that complaint could also be used to discredit the notability of people in academic fields who are widely published in academic journals). Regarding your statement about the book, "there is no evidence that it ever sold any copies at all", do you *really* think the companies that are still selling it (I posted links to three previously) have never sold a single copy? I found the following statement at [4] (not Kubik's site), roughly halfway down the page:

In 1998, Dinosaur Training became even bigger...literally. When it came time for the second printing, Brooks added two additional chapters.

So if there was a second printing, could we agree that it is quite likely that the first printing sold out? Dsreyn 02:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

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.